CMEC, 2007: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators

PCEI

P 20

07Council of Ministers of Education, CanadaConseil des ministres de l’Éducation (Canada)

Statistics StatistiqueCanada Canada

EducationIndicatorsin Canada

Report of thePan-CanadianEducationIndicatorsProgram2007

How to obtain more information

Specific inquiries about this product and related statistics or services should be directedto: Client Services, Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics, StatisticsCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6 (telephone: (613) 951-7608; toll free at 1 800 307-3382; by fax at (613) 951-9040; or e-mail: [email protected]).

For information on the wide range of data available from Statistics Canada, you cancontact us by calling one of our toll-free numbers. You can also contact us by e-mail orby visiting our Web site.

National inquiries line 1 800 263-1136

National telecommunications device for the hearing impaired 1 800 363-7629

E-mail inquiries [email protected]

Web site www.statcan.ca

Ordering information

This product, Catalogue No. 81-582-XPE, is available at a price of CDN $70.00.Contact Client Services, Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics,Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6 (telephone: (613) 951-7608; toll freeat 1 800 307-3382; by fax at (613) 951-9040; or e-mail: [email protected]).

The following additional shipping charges apply for delivery outside Canada:

United States CDN $6.00

Other countries CDN $10.00

This product is also available on the Internet for free (Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE). Userscan obtain single issues from Statistics Canada at: http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/studiesfree.cgi (click on “Education”).

Education Indicatorsin Canada

Report of the Pan-CanadianEducation Indicators Program 2007

© 2007 Canadian Education Statistics Council

Permission is granted for non-commercial reproduction related to educational purposes, provided there is a clearacknowledgement of the source. Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted inany form without prior permission from the Canadian Education Statistics Council, 95 St. Clair Ave. West,Suite 1106, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1N6.

December 2007

Catalogue no. 81-582-XPE

ISBN 978-0-660-19778-4

Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE

ISBN 978-0-662-47343-5

Frequency: Occasional

Ottawa, Toronto

Également offert en français sous le titre : Indicateurs de l ’éducation au Canada. Rapport du Programme d’indicateurspancanadiens de l ’éducation 2007. (no 81-582-XIF au catalogue).

Note of appreciation

Canada owes the success of its statistical system to a long-standing partnership between Statistics Canada, thecitizens of Canada, its businesses, governments and other institutions. Accurate and timely statistical informationcould not be produced without their continued cooperation and goodwill.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data

Education indicators in Canada: report of the Pan-CanadianEducation Indicators Program, 2007.

Co-published by: Canadian Education Statistics Council.Issued also in French under title: Indicateurs de l’éducationau Canada : rapport du Programme d’indicateurs pancanadiensde l’éducation, 2007.Available also on Internet.ISBN 978-0-660-19778-4 (paper)ISBN 978-0-662-47343-5 (Internet)CS81-582-XPECS81-582-XIE

1. Educational indicators – Canada. 2. Education – Canada – Statistics.I. Statistics Canada. Culture, Tourism and the Centre for EducationStatistics. II. Canadian Education Statistics Council. III Pan-CanadianEducation Indicators Program. IV. Title.

LA412 E38 2007 370.971’021C2007-988003-7

iiiStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

This publication was prepared jointly by Statistics Canadaand the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC),in collaboration with provincial/territorial departments andministries with responsibility for education and training. Itis the report of the Pan-Canadian Education IndicatorsProgram (PCEIP) of the Canadian Education StatisticsCouncil (CESC), a joint body of Statistics Canada andCMEC. Data included here were taken from the sourcesindicated and were accurate at the time they were reported toStatistics Canada. They may, however, differ from the datamade public by individual jurisdictions as adjustments havebeen made to the data to compensate for differences indefinitions and reference dates used and in institutionalreporting methods. The source for internationallycomparative statistics is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In this report, thestatistics for Canada may not appear exactly as they do in thecited OECD reports, due to subsequent updating/revision ofthe Canadian data by Statistics Canada. The definitions ofthe terms used are consistent with those found in otherStatistics Canada and CESC publications. This publicationincludes the most recent data available. Updated data forcertain indicators will be accessible on the Web sites ofStatistics Canada at http://www.statcan.ca and of the CMECat http://www.cmec.ca as the data become available.

Education Indicators in Canada

iv Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Symbols

The following standard symbols are used in this publication

. not available for any reference period

.. not available for a specific reference period

... not applicable

p preliminary

r revised

e estimate

x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act

E use with caution

F too unreliable to be published

Table of contents

vStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Table of contents

The Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program ix

Background ixWhat is unique about PCEIP ixValue of education indicators xIn this edition x

Highlights xi

Chapter A: A portrait of the school-age population xiChapter B: Financing education systems xiiiChapter C: Elementary-secondary education xivChapter D: Postsecondary education xviChapter E: Transitions and outcomes xix

A A portrait of the school-age population 3Introduction 3

A1 Population size 5Context 5Findings 5Aboriginal identity population 7Jurisdictions 8

A2 Cultural diversity 11Context 11Findings 11Immigration, visible minorities and non-official languages 11Aboriginal identity population 13

A3 Low income 15Context 15Findings 15

A4 Family background 19Context 19Findings 19Family composition 19Young adults 20Work activity of parents 21Living arrangements of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity 22Children aged 5 to 14 22Teens aged 15 to 19 22Young adults aged 20 to 24 23Work activity of parents 24


vi Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

B Financing education systems 27Introduction 27

B1 Total expenditure on education 29Context 29Findings 29Total expenditure 29Expenditure per capita 30Expenditure relative to GDP 31

B2 Public and private expenditure on education 33Context 33Findings 33Public expenditure 33Private expenditure 34Expenditure by households 35University tuition fees 36Private revenues at universities 38Capital and operating expenditure at universities 38

B3 Student debt 39Context 39Findings 39Levels of student debt in Canada 39Student debt by province 40Rate of repayment 41

C Elementary-secondary education 45Introduction 45

C1 Early years and school readiness 47Context 47Findings 47Health status 47Participation in activities 48Exposure to books and reading 48Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 49

C2 Elementary-secondary school: enrolments and educators 51Context 51Findings 51Overall enrolment 51Educators 52Student-educator ratio 53Composition of the full-time educator workforce 54Part-time status of educators by sex 55

C3 Secondary school graduation 57Context 57Findings 58Secondary school graduation rates 58

Table of contents

Table of contents

viiStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

C4 Student achievement 61Context 61Findings 61Programme for International Student Assessment 2000 and 2003 61School Achievement Indicators Program 62

C5 Information and communications technologies (ICT) 71Context 71Findings 71Students per computer 71Internet access 72Access to computers, at home and school 73Frequency of computer use 74Student use of computers to support education 75Differences in male-female access and use of computers 76

D Postsecondary education 79Introduction 79

D1 Enrolment in postsecondary education 81Context 81Findings 81Registered apprenticeship enrolment 81College enrolment 83University enrolment 83

D2 Postsecondary completions and graduation rates 87Context 87Findings 87Registered apprenticeship training 87College graduations 88University degrees 89Field of study 92

D3 University educators 93Context 93Findings 93Number of university educators 93Age of university educators 94Gender distribution 94Salary of full-time university educators 95

D4 Research and development 97Context 97Findings 97R&D contributed by universities 97Sources of funds for university R&D 100

D5 Literacy 103Context 103International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALLS) 103Findings 104Incidence of high and low proficiency in Canada 104Average proficiency scores of provinces and territories 104Urban and rural populations 106

Table of contents


viii Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Prose literacy proficiency and age 107Educational attainment and prose proficiency 108Employment and document proficiency 108Prose literacy in selected Aboriginal populations 110

D6 Educational attainment of the population aged 25 to 64 113Context 113International comparisons 113Aboriginal identity population: Improving the education profile 114Jurisdictions 116Evolution of educational attainment over time 117Educational attainment and gender 117

E Transitions and outcomes 121Introduction 121

E1 Transitions to postsecondary education 123Context 123Findings 123Participation in education 123University participation rate, provinces 124High school graduation at age 19 125Participation in postsecondary education by the ages of 22 to 24 126High school dropouts who return to education 128

E2 Transitions to the labour market 129Context 129Findings 129Transitions between education and the labour market 129Full-time employment of postsecondary graduates 131Education and earnings 133Mobility of postsecondary students and graduates 134

E3 Labour market outcomes 137Context 137Findings 137Unemployment rates and level of education 137Unemployment rates and level of education in the Aboriginal population 139Education and earnings 139

Appendices 143

Appendix 1Structure of education and training in Canada 145

Appendix 2Glossary 151

Tables 171

Chapter A tables 171Chapter B tables 207Chapter C tables 241Chapter D tables 269Chapter E tables 337

Committees and organizations 369

Table of contents

ixStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

The Pan-Canadian EducationIndicators Program

Background

This document is the fifth edition of Education Indicators in Canada: Report of thePan-Canadian Education Indicators Program.

The Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program, or PCEIP, is a joint ventureof Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC).

In the Victoria Declaration of 1993, the provincial and territorial ministersresponsible for education and training agreed to create PCEIP. PCEIP’s mission is topublish a set of statistical measures on education systems in Canada for policy makers,practitioners and the general public to monitor the performance of education systemsacross jurisdictions and over time.

The first indicators published under the PCEIP banner appeared in 1996. Aconsultation with provincial and territorial governments and other educationstakeholders the following year led to the definition of a new set of indicators, designedto address key policy issues. Similar consultations were held in the fall of 2004 andthe modifications to the indicator set from those consultations have been incorporatedin subsequent editions of Education Indicators in Canada.

In 1999, the first PCEIP report based on the new indicator set was published,followed by reports in 2003 and 2005.

What is unique about PCEIP

The Pan-Canadian Education Indicators are not the only indicators on Canadianeducation systems. Within Canada, many jurisdictions have developed educationindicators, or are in the process of doing so.

The diversity of education systems in Canada and differences in definitionsand data collection methods often restrict meaningful interjurisdictional comparisons.The Pan-Canadian Education Indicators incorporate extensive methodological workaimed at harmonizing data across jurisdictions. Indeed, the goal of the program is toprovide consistent and high-quality information on education for all of Canada tosupport informed decision-making, policy formulation and program development.

Internationally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentproduces a set of education indicators called the Indicators of Educational Systems(INES). The INES indicators compare education systems of OECD member countries.Results are published annually in Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Canada


x Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

has participated in this project since its inception in 1988. PCEIP incorporates certainINES indicators to provide an international framework for pan-Canadian andjurisdictional indicators.

Value of education indicators

Indicators combine discrete education statistics and give them context. Indicatorspermit comparisons—between jurisdictions, over time, and with commonly acceptedstandards.

Although indicators show trends and uncover interesting questions, they cannotby themselves provide explanations or permit conclusions to be drawn. Additionalresearch will always be required to diagnose the causes of problems and suggestsolutions. The aim of this report is to stimulate thinking and promote debate oneducation issues.

In this edition

The indicators are divided into five chapters. Chapter A, A Portrait of the School-AgePopulation, focuses on demographic trends for the population aged 5 to 29, andconsiders indicators of cultural diversity, low income, and family background for thepopulation aged 5 to 24.

Chapter B, Financing Education Systems, looks at trends in public and privateexpenditures on education, examines the distribution of capital and operatingexpenditures, and reports on student debt.

Chapter C, Elementary-Secondary Education, includes indicators on pre-schoolchildren, enrolment, graduation, and human resources at the elementary-secondarylevel. Other topics covered are information and communications technology andstudent achievement.

Chapter D, Postsecondary Education, provides similar information at thepostsecondary level, looking at participation and graduation data for apprenticeshipprograms, colleges, and universities, as well as human resources at universities. It alsocovers research and development, adult literacy, and the educational attainment ofthe working-age population.

Finally, Chapter E, Transitions and Outcomes, looks at transitions from highschool to postsecondary education and work, and provides information on labourmarket outcomes by level of education.

The indicators in this report were selected on the basis of two criteria: relevancefor policy development and availability of data. They are based on the most recentavailable data. Excel tables will be updated regularly and made available on the Web.

Highlights

xiStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Highlights

Chapter A: A portrait of the school-agepopulation

Population size

• The population aged 5 to 14 years is projected to decrease by less than half amillion between 2001 and 2011, to about 3.7 million.

• The population aged 15 to 19 years is projected to peak at 2.2 million in 2011. Itis expected to drop between 2011 and 2021.

• The 20- to 24-year-old population is expected to peak at about 2.3 million in2016 and to decrease until 2026, when it is expected to stabilize at 2.1 million.

• The population aged 25 to 29 is projected to increase in size until 2021, but is notexpected to regain 1991 levels.

• Due to the recent trend in fertility rates, most jurisdictions could experience aperiod of decline in their preschool, elementary, secondary and postsecondaryage populations.

• Τhe Aboriginal identity population aged 0 to 29 is projected to increase steadilyover the next 10 years. The only Aboriginal population group that is projected todecrease by 2016 is the Métis, both in the 5-to-14 and the 15-to-19 age groups.

Cultural diversity

• Diversity among the school-age population (aged 5 to 24 years) generally increasedbetween 1991 and 2001.

• In Toronto and Vancouver, over 25% of the school-age population in 2001 wereimmigrants, and approximately 20% had a home language other than English orFrench.

• The proportion of the school-age population with Aboriginal identity is significantand growing in Canada’s census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and in areas outsidethe CMAs in certain provinces and territories. In 2001, they represented 2% ofthe school-age population living in CMAs and 9% of the school-age populationliving outside metropolitan areas.

Low income

• In 2004, 7% of all children living with two parents were in low-income situations.Among children living in lone-parent families, the proportion was 26%.

• For those children living with one parent in 1999, just under half experienced aspell of low income at some time between 1999 and 2004, with 32% having lowincome for more than one year.


xii Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Family background

• The proportion of 5- to 14-year-olds who were living with married parents fellfrom 78% in 1991 to 69% in 2001. Among teenagers aged 15 to 19, thecorresponding proportions were 71% and 68%. The proportions of 5- to 19-year-olds raised by parents in common-law situations doubled between 1991 and 2001.In 2001, 19% of 5-to-19-year-old children lived with a lone parent.

• By 2001, more young adults were living at home with their parents. According to2001 Census data, 57% of 20- to 24-year-olds lived with their parents, a noticeablerise compared with 50% a decade earlier.

• More parents were working full-time in 2001 compared with 10 years earlier. Theproportion of children aged 5 to 14 living in two-parent families where both parentswere working full-time rose from 45% to 49%.

• Between 1996 and 2001, the census years that offer comparable Aboriginal identitydata, the proportion of 5- to 14-year-old Aboriginal children living with bothparents (married or common-law) remained fairly constant at 60%. The proportionof Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living with a lone parent increased from 29%to 35%, while the proportion of those not living with their parents decreased from10% to 5%.

• Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal people aged 15 to 19 whowere lone parents themselves increased from 2% to 4%.

• Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 livingin two-parent families where both parents worked full-time increased from 35%to 41%.

Highlights

xiiiStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Chapter B: Financing education systems

Total expenditure on education

• Between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, total education expenditure in Canada rose12% in 2001 constant dollars to $72.3 billion, with 67% of the overall increaseoccurring at the postsecondary level.

• Average Canadian per capita expenditure increased 7% to $2,305 between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003.

• In Canada, total public and private expenditure on education increased 14% whileGDP rose 17%, resulting in total education spending dropping from 6.6% ofGDP in 1999/2000 to 6.4% in 2002/2003.

Public and private expenditure on education

• In the 2005/2006 fiscal year, governments spent $75.7 billion (in 2001 constantdollars) on all levels of education, which represented 16.1% of total publicexpenditures. Spending on health that year accounted for 19.9% of publicexpenditures.

• Between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, combined federal, provincial/territorial andmunicipal government expenditure (in constant dollars) in Canada grew by 10%at the postsecondary level; expenditure at the elementary-secondary level increasedby 5%.

• In 2002/2003, $3.6 billion in private expenditures was spent at the elementary-secondary level and $9.2 billion at the postsecondary level.

• In 2004, 43% of Canadian households incurred educational expenses for suchitems as textbooks, school supplies and tuition costs, spending an average of $2,484.

• In 2005/2006, university tuition fees ranged from $2,948 in education to $11,724in dentistry. Undergraduate university tuition cost an average of $3,788. At theCanada level, the share of total university revenues accounted for by student feesand other non-government revenues decreased slightly from 47% in 1999/2000to 46% in 2004/2005.

• In 2004/2005, Canadian universities’ expenditures totaled $21 billion, with capitaland operating expenditures respectively accounting for 10% and 90% of the total.Sixty-one per cent of operating expenses were devoted to compensation foracademic and other staff.

Student debt

• The 2000 university graduates who borrowed from government student loanprograms owed an average of $16,200 at graduation, 25% more than 1995university graduates. Similarly, the 2000 college graduates owed an average of$11,700, 20% more than 1995 college graduates.

• Almost one-quarter of 2000 graduates who did not pursue any furtherpostsecondary education program still owed debt to government student loanprograms five years after graduation.


xiv Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Chapter C: Elementary-secondary education

Early years and school readiness

• Canadian parents reported in 2004/2005 that the physical health of their 4- and5-year-old children was generally very good.

• In 2004/2005, 18% of 4- and 5-year-old boys had received a diagnosis of asthmaat some point in their lives, along with 9% of 4- and 5-year-old girls.

• Approximately 60% of 4- and 5-year-olds had an adult who read to them everyday.

• More 4- and 5-year-old girls than boys looked at books or tried to read on theirown daily (75% vs. 67% among the 5-year-olds).

• In 2004/2005, the vast majority of 4- and 5-year-olds had normal or advancedreceptive language skills (83% to 89% depending on gender and age).

Elementary-secondary school enrolments andeducators

• Between the 1997/1998 and 2004/2005 school years, enrolments in publicelementary and secondary schools rose in only two provinces, Ontario and Alberta.

• There were approximately 310,000 educators country-wide in 2004/2005.Thenumber of female educators far exceeded the number of male educators in all agegroups. Most full-time educators, whether male or female, were in the 30-to-59age range. The proportions of full-time educators in the oldest age group werevery low, with few working after the age of 60.

• Between 1997/1998 and 2004/2005, the number of students per educator declined.The student-educator ratio in public elementary-secondary schools fell from 16.6to 15.9 at the Canada level.

Secondary school graduation

• The pan-Canadian high school graduation rate in 2002/2003 was 74%.• In Canada as a whole, in 2002/2003, graduation rates were higher for females

(78%) than for males (70%). The situation was the same in 1997/1998.

Student achievement

• In terms of mathematics literacy, Canada’s performance on OECD’s Programmefor International Student Assessment (PISA) was strong, with only Hong Kong-China and Finland, performing significantly better than Canada.

• Across Canada, 71% of 13-year-olds and 64% of 16-year-olds reached the expectedlevels on the 2004 science assessment of the School Achievement IndicatorsProgram (SAIP).

• In the SAIP writing assessment, in 2002, 84% of 13-year-olds and 61% of 16-year-olds reached the expected levels.

• In the SAIP mathematics assessment, in 2001, 64% of 13-year-olds and 50% of16-year-olds reached the expected levels in mathematics content.

Highlights

xvStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Information and communications technologies (ICT)

• In 2003, the average number of students per school computer in OECD countrieswas 15. Canada’s average of six students per every school computer is among themost favourable.

• In Canada, 89% of 15-year-olds in 2003 had a home Internet connection, rankingsecond after Sweden (90%).

• Overall, about 90% of students in Canada reported frequent computer use athome in 2003, about double that claiming frequent use of school computers (4 in10).

• Although at least 95% of Canadian 15-year-old students had access to computers,either at home or at school, over one-quarter (28%) said they “never” usedcomputers for learning their school material.


xvi Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Chapter D: Postsecondary education

Enrolment in postsecondary education

• In 2004, there were 267,800 registered apprentices in Canada, 64% more than in1994.

• In the 2004/2005 academic year, the total number of full-time students enrolledin public colleges and institutes in all jurisdictions was about 514,000.

• Between 1994/1995 and 2004/2005, undergraduate enrolment at Canadianuniversities increased 19%, rising from 658,300 students to 785,700, with mostof this growth occurring since the latter part of the 1990s. In 2004/2005, therewere 148,700 graduate students in Canada. This represents an increase of 32%over the decade, a faster rate of growth than at the total undergraduate level.Most of this increase has occurred since the latter part of the 1990s.

• Full-time students are the drivers behind this growth as their numbers have grown28% since 1999 to a record 631,900 students in 2004/2005. In contrast, part-time enrolment at the undergraduate level decreased 11% to 155, 300 studentsbetween 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, and since then has remained at this lowerlevel

• Women have constituted the majority in full-time undergraduate studies for sometime, and now their enrolment at the total graduate level is equal to that of men.Since 1994/1995, men’s share of full-time undergraduate enrolment has decreasedfrom 46% to 42%. Men’s share of graduate enrolment dropped from 56% to 51%over the same period.

Postsecondary completions and graduation rates

• The apprenticeship branches of provincial and territorial governments reported19,700 individuals completing registered apprenticeship programs in 2004, up17% from 1994. The number of completers increased in all major trade groups,with the “other trades” group, metal fabricating, and industrial and relatedmechanical trades showing the highest growth rates over the decade.

• In 2004/2005, there were 173,000 graduates from public colleges and institutesin Canada.

• In 2004, there were about 31,000 more graduates from Canadian universitiesthan in 1994, with women accounting for three-quarters of this increase. In 2004,women accounted for 60% of graduates compared with 57% 10 years earlier.

• The physical, natural and applied sciences accounted for 23% of universitygraduates in 2004.

University educators

• Βetween 1994/1995 and 2004/2005, the total number of full-time universityeducators rose by 6%. This global increase masked diverging evolution amongthe ranks of faculty: the number of full and associate professors employed inCanadian universities actually fell 6% and 5%, respectively, while the number ofeducators in the “other ranks,” which captures entry-level assistant professors,lecturers and instructors, jumped 41%. By 2004/2005, these educators accountedfor 32% of the total full-time teaching faculty, up from 24% in 1994/1995.

• Since 1999, the age profile of university educators in Canada has become bothyounger and older. In 2004/2005, 19% of educators were 30 to 39 years of age, upfrom 16% in 1999/2000. Over this same period, the proportion of faculty whowere 50 to 59 years of age dropped from 39% to 33% and the proportion aged 60and over increased from 12% to 16%.

Highlights

xviiStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

• Women accounted for 32% of all full-time university educators by 2004/2005, upfrom 23% a decade earlier.

• Between 1994/1995 and 2004/2005, average salaries of full-time university facultyincreased 4% (in 2001 constant dollars) to about $87,000.

Research and development

• In 2004, Canada conducted $24.2 billion worth of R&D (in real 2001 dollars).This represents 2.0% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Between 2000 and2004, expenditure on R&D grew by 16%, a rate just high enough to keep theratio of the GDP constant.

• Canada’s R&D performance appears below the OECD countries’ average at 2.3%.Canada slipped one place from 11th in 2002 to 12th in 2004 among OECDcountries.

• In 2004, universities accounted for slightly more than one-third of all R&D inCanada, second to the business sector which accounted for more than half of allR&D.

• In 1991, universities across Canada contributed $3.8 billion (in real 2001 dollars)worth of R&D. By 2004, R&D in the university sector more than doubled to$8.4 billion.

Literacy

• Just over half (52%) of the population aged 16 and over in 2003 had levels ofprose literacy proficiency at Level 3 or above (as measured in IALSS 2003), while48% performed at Levels 1 or 2 on the prose literacy scale. These individuals arelikely to face real challenges in coping with the emerging skill demands of aknowledge-based economy.

• The proportion of adults at each level of the prose literacy scale did not differnoticeably between the urban and the rural populations.

• Prose literacy proficiency tends to be lower after age 35. After the age of 55, morethan half of the population had a proficiency level below Level 3 on the proseliteracy scale—the level considered as the desired threshold for coping in aknowledge-based society. Among the population aged 66 and over, more thanhalf (52%) had a score at Level 1.

• At the pan-Canadian level, 78% of the population aged 16 and over with auniversity degree achieved Level 3 or above for prose proficiency, compared with22% of those without a high school diploma. Approximately one-third of thepopulation aged 16 and over with a university degree (35%) is at the highestlevels of prose proficiency, compared with 4% of the population without a highschool diploma.

• Individuals who have document literacy scores at the lowest level of proficiencyhave a much lower employment rate than do those at higher levels of proficiency.For instance, 57% of individuals who scored at Level 1 of the document proficiencyscale are employed, compared with 81% of those who scored at Levels 4/5.


xviii Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Educational attainment of the populationaged 25 to 64

• In terms of the percentage of the population with a university degree, Canadaranked sixth overall, according to the OECD.

• In 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal people with less than high school educationwas 39%, down substantially from 45% five years earlier. Between 1996 and 2001,the proportion of Aboriginal people with a high school diploma increased from21% to 23%, while the share of those with postsecondary qualifications at thetrade, college, or university level increased from 33% to 38%.

• In 2001, 8% of Aboriginal people aged 25 to 64 had a university education,compared with 23% in the non-Aboriginal population.

• The proportion of Aboriginal people with postsecondary credentials was noticeablyhigher among the younger cohorts, as compared with Aboriginal people aged 55to 64. Similar trends were observed in the North American Indian, Métis andInuit populations.

• In 2001, Aboriginal men were more likely than Aboriginal women to have tradequalifications (20% versus 12%, respectively). On the other hand, Aboriginalwomen were considerably more likely than Aboriginal men to have collegediplomas (18% versus 11%) or university degrees (9% versus 6%).

Highlights

xixStatistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Chapter E: Transitions and outcomes

Transitions to postsecondary education

• Among the cohort of youth who were 19-years-old in 2003, roughly 10% ofmales were classified as high-school dropouts, compared with 6% of females thesame age.

• At the Canada level in 2003, approximately 15% of 22- to 24-year-olds werehigh school graduates who had never attempted a postsecondary program. Arelatively higher proportion of males (18%) than females (12%) fell into thiscategory.

• Among the 22- to 24-year-olds who were in Cycle 3 of the Youth in TransitionSurvey (YITS) in 2004, some had reported that they were high school dropoutsin 1999, when they were 18- to 20-years-old. Of these, 38% had returned toschool and had either obtained a high school diploma or had participated in apostsecondary program.

Transitions to the labour market

• In 2005/2006, just over half of all students aged 17 to 29 were working while theyattended school. At every age in this range, the percentage of students with jobswas higher in 2005/2006 than in 1995/1996.

• Compared with the 1995 graduating class, 2000 graduates from both college anduniversity had higher rates of full-time employment two years after graduationAmong university graduates, 74% of the 2000 class worked full-time two yearsafter graduation, compared with 69% of the 1995 class.

• The highest proportions of full-time employed university graduates were frombusiness, management and public administration, as well as personal, protectiveand transportation services.

• While median earnings generally rose slightly for university graduates between1995 and 2000, college graduates’ earnings remained steady at $28,000 two yearsafter graduation and declined five years after graduation (from $35,000 for the1995 graduate cohort to $33,000 for the 2000 graduate cohort).

Labour market outcomes

• By 2006, the unemployment rate had fallen to 12% for those with less than highschool and 4% for university graduates from recent higher levels of 14% and 5%,respectively, in 2002.

• In 2000, more than 60% of earners in the lowest annual earnings category (lessthan $20,000) had no more than a high school education. However, more than60% of earners in the top category ($100,000 or more) had a university degree.

• In the 50-to-54 age group, university-educated workers earned an average of$61,000, more than twice the earnings of workers the same age with less thanhigh school ($29,000).

A

1

Chapter A figures

Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Chapter A

A portrait of the school-age population 3

A1 Population size 5

A2 Cultural diversity 11

A3 Low income 15

A4 Family background 19

2



Chart A.1.1Estimated and projected population, age groups0 to 4, 5 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and 25 to 29,Canada, 1991 to 2031 6

Chart A.1.2Estimated and projected Aboriginal identity population,age groups 0 to 4, 5 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and25 to 29, Canada, 2001 to 2016 7

Chart A.1.3Percentage growth between 2001 and 2016,Aboriginal identity population aged 0 to 14 and20 to 29, selected provinces and territories 9

Chart A.2.1Proportion of immigrants among the school-agepopulation (ages 5 to 24), selected census metropolitanareas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001 12

Chart A.2.2Proportion of visible minorities among the school-agepopulation (ages 5 to 24), selected census metropolitanareas, 1991, 1996 and 2001 12

Chart A.2.3Proportion of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24)with non-official home languages, selected censusmetropolitan areas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001 13

Chart A.2.4Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity, 1996 and 2001 14

Chart A.3.1Distribution of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24),by number of years in low income between 1999 and 2004,by family situation in 1999, Canada 16

Chart A.3.2Percentage of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24)in low income, Canada and provinces, 2004 17

Chart A.3.3Percentage of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24)who spent more than a year in low income between1999 and 2004, Canada and provinces 17

Chart A.4.1Living arrangements of children aged 5 to 14, Canada,1991 and 2001 20

Chart A.4.2Living arrangements of population aged 20 to 24,Canada, 1991 and 2001 20

Chart A.4.3Proportion of population aged 20 to 24 living withtheir parents, Canada, provinces and territories, 2001 21

Chart A.4.4Living arrangements of Aboriginal identity childrenaged 5 to 14 and 15 to 19, Canada, 1996 and 2001 22

Chart A.4.5Living arrangements of Aboriginal identity populationaged 20 to 24, Canada, 1996 and 2001 23

Chapter A charts

A portrait of the school-age population

3Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

A portrait of the school-agepopulation

Introduction

The school-age population (defined here as the population aged 5 to 24) is slowlychanging. Its size, cultural diversity, and family characteristics are all evolving in waysand directions to which schools and teachers have to adapt. This chapter presents theevolution of some key characteristics of the school-age population and attempts tohighlight some of the challenges for the education systems in Canada. These trendswill have a country-wide influence but may not apply to specific local areas.Furthermore, the statistical portrait traced here could be enriched further with scoresof other important statistics, on topics such as health, exposure to violence, or activitiesoutside schools.

Indicator A1 looks at the evolution of the size of the school-age population,and the population aged 0 to 4 and 25 to 29, from 1991 to 2001, and providesprojections through to 2031. Indicator A1 also looks at the size of the school-ageAboriginal identity population in 2001, and provides projections through to 2016,the latest date for which projections are currently available.

Indicator A2 presents the increasing diversity of the school-age population interms of immigrants, visible minorities, and languages spoken at home in some of themajor census metropolitan areas (CMAs) in Canada. It also traces shifts in theproportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity.

Indicator A3 shows the proportion of the school-age population in low-incomefamilies.

Indicator A4 provides information on the makeup of Canadian families, onliving arrangements of children and young adults, as well as work activities of parents.

5

A1


Population size

Context

This indicator provides an overview of recent trends and projections for the pre-school-age population (0 to 4), the school-age population, which comprises theelementary (aged 5 to 14), secondary (aged 15 to 19) and postsecondary (aged 20to 24) levels of education, and for the population aged 25 to 29.

Demographic information is an important factor to consider in anticipatingthe demand for education services. At ages when schooling is compulsory, trends inpopulation size provide a direct indication of resource requirements of the educationsystems—from teacher hiring to investment in the construction and maintenance ofbuildings to program planning that meets the educational needs of particular sectorsof the population. The relationship between population change and capacityrequirement is not linear, however. For instance, students can be transported fromareas where demand exceeds capacity to areas where unused capacity exists; withincertain legislated limits, ratios of students to teachers can vary; and schools can operatebelow capacity level.

At the postsecondary level, trends in population provide a sense of the changingsize of the potential “clientele.”

Findings

The pre-school population is projected to slightly fluctuate around 1.8 million, havingreached a high of 2 million in 1991 and a projected low of 1.7 million in 2006. Thepopulation aged 0 to 4, however, is the most uncertain group to project because it isentirely dependent on the fertility rate assumption. Given current demographicassumptions, the population aged 5 to 14 years peaked at 4.1 million in 2001(Chart A.1.1 and Table A.1.1). That population is projected to decrease by less thanhalf a million between 2001 and 2011 to about 3.7 million, as the smaller cohortsborn in the late 1990s and early 2000s enter elementary schools. After 2016, it maystart to slowly increase again if fertility rates remain constant from 2006 on, as assumedin the medium-growth scenario of Statistics Canada’s official population projections(see 2007 PCEIP Handbook1).


6

A1


Chart A.1.1

Estimated and projected population, age groups 0 to 4, 5 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and 25 to 29, Canada, 1991 to 2031

4.5

3.0

4.5

2.5

4.0

3.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

3.5

3.0

millions millions

1991 1996 2001 20112006 2016 2021

Estimates Projections

20312026

Source: Table A.1.1.

The population aged 15 to 19 years is projected to peak in 2011 at 2.2 million,12.5% above the 1991 level. It is expected to drop between 2011 and 2021 and thenincrease slightly to 2.1 million in 2031, assuming again that the 2006 fertility ratesremain constant throughout the projection period.

The 20- to 24-year-old population is expected to peak in size in 2016 at about2.3 million and to decrease until 2026, when it is expected to stabilize at 2.1 million.

The oldest group, those aged 25 to 29, decreased in size by 11% between 1991and 2006. Although this group is projected to increase in size until 2021, after whichit decreases slightly, it is not expected to regain 1991 levels.

Due to the recent trend in fertility rates, most jurisdictions could experience aperiod of decline in their pre-school, elementary, secondary and postsecondary agepopulations. Between 2006 and 2031, Ontario and Northwest Territories are the onlyjurisdictions that can expect growth for all age groups from age 0 to 29. Growth isprojected for British Columbia for the population between 0 and 19 and for the25-to-29 age group, for Alberta for the 0-to-14 age group, and for Manitoba for the0 to 4 age group. The other provinces are likely to see declines, especially across the5-to-14 population group. Among this age group, these declines from 2006 to 2031are projected to be between 15 and 20% for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia andSaskatchewan, and over 20% for Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick.Among the territories, this group will likely decline slightly until 2026 in Yukon,while in the Northwest Territories this group will likely slightly increase from 2021to 2031. Nunavut can expect its 5-to-14 population to remain relatively stable afteran increase between 2006 and 2011. Jurisdictional differences are affected byimmigration, inter-jurisdictional migration, and, in Nunavut, the high fertility rateamong its Aboriginal population.

2.5

4.0

0 to 4

5 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

Population size

7

A1


Aboriginal identity population

Compared with the total Canadian population, the Aboriginal population has a higherfertility rate and, therefore, is likely to continue to grow much faster than the totalpopulation. Education systems and the labour market in regions with a highconcentration of Aboriginal peoples will need to be prepared for this growth.

The population aged 0 to 29 who identified themselves as a member of anAboriginal group was estimated at 622,000 in the 2001 Census (Table A.1.2). Of thisnumber, the majority was North American Indian (68% or 424,000). The Métisrepresented 27% (167,000), and the Inuit, 5% (31,000).

According to Statistics Canada’s medium-growth scenario, the Aboriginalpopulation growth is expected to slow down due to a decline in fertility rates.Nevertheless, the Aboriginal identity population aged 0 to 29 is projected to increasesteadily over the next 10 years.

The number of Aboriginal people aged 0 to 29 is projected to increase to 754,000by 2016, 21% above the 2001 level. In comparison, the total Canadian populationaged 0 to 29 is projected to remain about the same for this period. The Inuit populationaged 0 to 29 is projected to grow the most between 2001 and 2016 (32%), followed bythe North American Indian (26%) and the Métis (7%) populations. This patternholds true for every age breakdown.

The only Aboriginal population group which is projected to decrease by 2016is the Métis, both in the 5 to 14 and the 15 to 19 age groups. For the North AmericanIndian and the Inuit populations, the largest increase is projected for the 20-to-24age group, while the greatest increase for the Métis population is projected for the 25to 29 age group. Differential fertility among the three Aboriginal groups is the maindeterminant of dissimilar growth patterns.

The pre-school Aboriginal population (0 to 4 years) is expected to increase28% between 2001 and 2016, compared with just 1% for the total Canadian population.The population aged 0 to 4, again, is the most uncertain group to project because it isentirely dependent on the fertility assumption.

Chart A.1.2

Estimated and projected Aboriginal identity population, age groups 0 to 4, 5 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and25 to 29, Canada, 2001 to 2016

thousands thousands

2016

300 300

2006


2001 2002 20052003 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

250

200

150

100

50

250

200

150

100

50

0 to 4

5 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

Estimates Projections


8

A1


In 2001, the elementary school-age group (5 to 14 years) had 238,000 Aboriginalchildren. This age group presents the smallest projected growth of all age groupswithin the Aboriginal population, namely 7% above 2001 levels. In comparison,however, the total population aged 5 to 14 in Canada is projected to decrease 10% forthe same period.

The secondary school-age Aboriginal population (15 to 19 years) is expectedto increase 12% between 2001 and 2016, compared with a decline of 5% for the totalCanadian population.

During the projection period, an important and growing number of youngAboriginal adults will be entering the postsecondary education system and/or thelabour market. Specifically, the proportion of young Aboriginal adults aged 20 to 24is projected to increase by 43%, and those aged 25 to 29 is projected to increase by39%. This is much greater than the projected increase for the total Canadian population(9% and 15%, respectively).

Jurisdictions

The provinces that are expected to have the largest absolute number of Aboriginalpeople aged 0 to 29 by 2016 are Quebec (63,000), Ontario (131,000), Manitoba(126,000), Saskatchewan (121,000), Alberta (121,000), and British Columbia(110,000). In the territories, the Aboriginal population aged 0 to 29 is projected toreach 5,000 in Yukon, 17,000 in the Northwest Territories, and 22,000 in Nunavut.

By 2016, Saskatchewan can expect a substantial increase in the size of itsAboriginal population aged 20 to 29, which is projected to be 65% above the 2001level (Chart A1.3). The Aboriginal population aged 20 to 29 in Manitoba and Albertais projected to be 47% and 45% above 2001 levels, respectively. The Aboriginalpopulation aged 20 to 29 in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia is projected toincrease between 27 and 30%.

The provinces that can expect a fair increase in the size of their Aboriginalpopulation aged 0 to 14 between 2001 and 2016 are Quebec (17%), Manitoba (21%),and Saskatchewan (22%).

Among the territories, Nunavut is likely to see a substantial increase in the sizeof its Aboriginal population aged 20 to 29 by 2016, which is projected to be 65%above the 2001 level. Yukon and the Northwest Territories can also expect largeincreases in the size of the Aboriginal population aged 20 to 29: 57% and 52% above2001 levels, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2016, the Aboriginal population aged 0 to 14 is also projectedto grow substantially in the territories: 47% in Yukon, 40% in the Northwest Territories,and 28% in Nunavut.

Population size

9

A1


Chart A.1.3

Percentage growth between 2001 and 2016, Aboriginal identity population aged 0 to 14 and 20 to 29,selected provinces and territories

Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B. C. Y.T. N.W.T. Nvt.0

50

20

30

60

40

10

70

0

50

20

30

60

40

10

70

percentage percentage

0 to 14

20 to 29



10

A1


Endnote

1. Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators inCanada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no.81-582-XIE. Ottawa.

11

A2


Cultural diversity

Context

Using census data, this indicator captures four major aspects of the diversity of theschool-age population. It measures the proportion of the school-age population whoare immigrants, who are visible minorities, and whose home language is neitherEnglish nor French. It also presents the proportions of the population aged 5 to 24with Aboriginal identity in Canada and its jurisdictions.

Since 2000, an average of 241,000 immigrants of all ages has arrived in Canadaevery year. With the decline in births (see Indicator A1), more than half of Canada’sdemographic growth is currently attributable to immigration. Nearly three-quarters(73%) of the immigrants who came in the 1990s settled in just three censusmetropolitan areas (CMAs): Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. The vast majority ofthem have come from non-western countries: 60% from Asia and 20% from theCaribbean, Latin America and Africa. This results in a rapidly growing and increasinglydiverse population in certain CMAs that contrasts with the slow-growing (or evendeclining) and relatively homogeneous population elsewhere.

Primarily as a result of immigration, the cultural makeup of the school-agepopulation is growing more diverse. This diversity has an impact on teaching, supportservices, and school dynamics, in many ways. The challenge is to adapt the learningenvironment to the needs of students who are immigrant, Aboriginal, or not fluent inthe teaching language, in a school community where students are from diverse culturalbackgrounds.

The focus of this indicator is on areas of the most significant diversity. This isnot to underestimate issues that may also arise in areas where only a small minority ofthe school-age population has different cultural backgrounds.

Findings

Immigration, visible minorities andnon-official languages

In Toronto and Vancouver, over 25% of the school-age population in 2001 wereimmigrants, over 40% were visible minorities, and approximately 20% had a homelanguage other than English or French (Charts A.2.1, A.2.2 and A.2.3 andTables A.2.1, A.2.2 and A.2.3). Toronto and Vancouver are among the world’s mostmulti-ethnic urban centres. In 2017, more than half of the population aged 5 to 24 inToronto (57%) and Vancouver (55%) is expected to belong to a visible minority group.


12

A2


Chart A.2.1

Proportion of immigrants among the school-age population (ages 5 to 24), selected census metropolitan areas (CMAs),1991, 1996 and 2001


Toronto

Vancouver

Ottawa-Gatineau(Ontario part)

Windsor

Kitchener

Montreal

Hamilton

Calgary

London

Abbotsford

0 5 10 15 20 25 30percentage

1996

1991

2001

percentage

0

Chart A.2.2

Proportion of visible minorities among the school-age population (ages 5 to 24), selected census metropolitan areas,1991, 1996 and 2001

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Vancouver

Toronto

Abbotsford

Calgary

Montreal

Windsor

Edmonton

Winnipeg

Kitchener

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45percentage

1996

1991

2001

percentage



35 40 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Cultural diversity

13

A2


Chart A.2.3

Proportion of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24) with non-official home languages, selected censusmetropolitan areas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001

Vancouver

Toronto

Abbotsford

Windsor

Montreal

Kitchener

Hamilton

Calgary

London

percentage

percentage


1996

1991

2001

The other eight CMAs where diversity is particularly significant are Montreal,Ottawa-Gatineau (Ontario part), Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Calgary,and Abbotsford. In these CMAs in 2001, between 9% and 14% of the school-agepopulation were immigrants, between 12% and 21% were visible minorities, andbetween 6% and 10% had a home language other than English or French. Comparablepercentages of visible minorities among the school-age population are found also inthe CMAs of Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Victoria.

Diversity generally increased between 1991 and 2001. The school-agepopulation whose home language is neither English nor French increased in relativeterms in the majority of the 10 most diverse CMAs, except London, Kitchener, andMontreal, where it remained fairly stable. The proportion of immigrants declinedslightly in Calgary, and remained fairly stable in Montreal, London, Kitchener, andAbbotsford. The proportion of visible minorities, many of whom were born in Canada,grew in all 10 CMAs shown in Chart A.2.2.

Aboriginal identity population

Because the birth rate remains higher among the Aboriginal than the non-Aboriginalpopulation, the proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity issignificant and growing in the CMAs and in areas outside the CMAs in certainprovinces and territories (Chart A.2.4, Table A.2.4 and Table A.2.5).


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45


14

A2


10

Chart A.2.4

Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, 1996 and 2001

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

percentage

0

percentage

Note: Nunavut and Northwest Territories: data are calculated using the 1999 boundaries.


2001

1996

In 2001, 93% of the population aged 5 to 24 had Aboriginal identity in Nunavut,61% in the Northwest Territories, and 29% in Yukon. Among the provinces, Manitobaand Saskatchewan had the highest proportions of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity in 2001, both within and outside CMAs. The non-CMA parts ofNewfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, and British Columbia, as well as the CMAsof Thunder Bay and Sudbury were the other areas of the country with a high andgrowing proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity in 2001.

Nunavut

Northwest Territories

Manitoba Non-CMAs

Yukon

Saskatchewan Non-CMAs

Saskatoon

Regina

Alberta Non-CMAs

British Columbia Non-CMAs

Winnipeg

Thunder BayNewfoundland and

Labrador Non-CMAsSudbury

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

15

A3


Low income

Context

This indicator provides information on the proportion of the school-age populationliving in low-income circumstances, including the duration of low-income spells.

Family income is strongly associated with academic results. Living in low-income1 circumstances impedes school readiness of pre-school children, reduces thelikelihood of attending university and increases the likelihood of living in low-incomecircumstances as an adult. Information on the number and characteristics of childrenin low-income families can help develop appropriate policies and programs that targetchildren most in need. Examples include pre-school and after-school programs, in-school access to computers and the Internet, and student loan programs.

Findings

The proportion of the school-age population living in low-income families differssignificantly by family type. It is also influenced by economic conditions. Between1990 and 1995, the proportions rose significantly for all family types, but thendecreased, with figures for 2000 and 2004 remaining relatively stable. In 2004, 7% ofall children living with two parents were in low-income situations, down from 8% in2000. Among children living in lone-parent families, the proportion was 26% in 2004,down from 27% in 2000. For those not living with their parents, most of whom werebetween 19 and 24 years of age, the proportion was 38% in 2004 compared with 39%in 2000 (Table A.3.1).

A longitudinal perspective reveals that among children living with two parentsin 1999, 81% never fell in low income, 9% lived a spell of low income of less than ayear at some point between 1999 and 2004, and 10% had a period of low income dueto changes in employment or family circumstances that lasted for a year or more(Chart A.3.1 and Table A.3.2).

Children living in lone-parent families were much more at risk of experiencinga longer period of low income. For those living with one parent in 1999, just underhalf experienced a spell of low income at some time between 1999 and 2004; for 32%,the spell lasted more than a year.

Finally, for those who were not living with their parents in 1999, 44%experienced low income between 1999 and 2004, with 27% having low income formore than one year.


16

A3


Chart A.3.1

Distribution of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24), by number of years in low income1 between 1999 and 2004, by familysituation in 1999, Canada

In 2004, the proportion of the school-age population living in low income washigher than the Canadian average in Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan,Alberta and British Columbia. The lowest were in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia,and New Brunswick. Over the 1999 to 2004 period, the provinces with the highestproportions of the school-age population who spent more than a year with an incomebelow the low-income cutoffs (LICOs) were also Newfoundland and Labrador,Manitoba, and British Columbia, while the proportions were the lowest in PrinceEdward Island and Ontario (Charts A.3.2 and A.3.3).

Living with lone parent

Not living with parents

90

80

20

30

40

50

60

70

90

80

20

30

40

50

60

70

10 10

Living with two parents

0 0Never in

low income

1. Based on after-tax low-income cutoffs.


More than one yearin low income

Up to one yearin low income


Low income

17

A3


British Columbia

Newfoundland and Labrador

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Canada

Ontario

Manitoba

Quebec

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Prince Edward Island

Chart A.3.3

Percentage of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24) who spent more than a year in low income1 between 1999and 2004, Canada and provinces

15 205 100

15 205 100

percentage

25

25

percentage




British Columbia

Manitoba

Nova Scotia

Alberta

Quebec

Saskatchewan

New Brunswick

Canada


Ontario

Chart A.3.2

Percentage of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24) in low income,1 Canada and provinces, 2004

14 1810 122 60

14 1810 122 60

percentage

4

4

8

8

16

16



percentage


18

A3


Endnote

1. For methodological information on the after-tax low-income cutoffs (LICOs) used here, see 2007PCEIP Handbook.

19

A4


Family background

Context

Families sometimes undergo transformations that may affect children’s learning, eitherpositively or negatively. As parents and teachers are partners in the education ofchildren, it is important that children from all types of families be accommodated inschools and that strong links be maintained with their parents.

This indicator provides information on the composition of Canadian familiesand on the living arrangements and work activity of parents. It also presents data onthe living arrangements of Aboriginal children and young Aboriginal adults.

Findings

Family composition

Children of elementary-secondary school ages were less likely to live with marriedparents in 2001 than a decade earlier (Chart A.4.1). The proportion of 5- to 14-year-olds who were living with married parents fell from 78% in 1991 to 69% in 2001.Among teenagers aged 15 to 19, the corresponding proportions were 71% and 68%(Table A.4.1).

The proportions of 5- to 19-year-olds raised by parents in common-lawsituations doubled between 1991 and 2001, rising from 6% to 11% in the 5-to-14 agegroup and from 3% to 6% for those aged 15 to 19. In 2001, among children aged 5 to14, those in Quebec (24%), Yukon (18%), the Northwest Territories (23%) andNunavut (25%) were much more likely to be living with common-law parents comparedwith 5- to 14-year-olds in the rest of Canada.

The proportion of the total school-age population (aged 5 to 24) living with alone parent also increased over the decade, rising from 14% to 17%. In 2001, thehighest percentages were found in Yukon (24%) and Northwest Territories (20%).

Census data indicate that, in 2001, 19% of children in the 5-to-14 and 15-to-19 age groups lived with a lone parent. These proportions represent increases over1991, although changes to the census definition of family in 2001 make comparisonswith previous years difficult. In 2001, the largest proportions of children aged 5 to 14living in lone-parent families were recorded for Nova Scotia, Yukon, and NorthwestTerritories; the lowest were in Prince Edward Island and Alberta.


20

A4


Young adults

By 2001, more young adults were living at home with their parents. According to2001 Census data, 57% of 20- to 24-year-olds lived with their parents, a noticeablerise compared with 50% a decade earlier (Chart A.4.2 and Table A.4.1).


20

30

40

50

60

20

30

40

50

60

10 10

0 0

Chart A.4.2

Living arrangements of population aged 20 to 24, Canada, 1991 and 2001


Living withparent(s)

Living withspouse

Living aslone parent

Other livingarrangements

1991

2001


90

0

10

30

50

70

80

60

40

20

Chart A.4.1

Living arrangements of children aged 5 to 14, Canada, 1991 and 2001


Living withmarried parents

Living withcommon-law parents

Living witha lone parent

Not living withany parent

90

0

10

30

50

70

80

60

40

201991

2001

Family background

21

A4


In 2001, the proportions of young adults who lived with their parents werehighest in Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario, and lowest in Saskatchewan,Alberta, and the three territories (Chart A.4.3).

Chart A.4.3

Proportion of population aged 20 to 24 living with their parents, Canada, provinces and territories, 2001

60 7010 400 20 50percentage


Ontario


30

Canada

British ColumbiaQuebec

New BrunswickNova Scotia

Manitoba

Yukon

AlbertaNorthwest Territories

SaskatchewanNunavut

60 7010 400 20 5030percentage

Source: Table A.4.1

Work activity of parents

More parents were working full-time in 2001 compared with 10 years earlier(Table A.4.2). The proportion of children aged 5 to 14 living in two-parent familieswhere both parents were working full-time rose from 45% to 49%. At the same time,the proportion of those who had one parent working full-time and another workingpart-time remained fairly stable. And the proportion of children with one parentworking full-time and one staying at home declined from 23% to 20%.

Some similar changes are evident for 5- to 14-year-old children in lone parentfamilies (Table A.4.2). The proportion of children whose parent worked full-timerose from 56% in 1991 to 59% in 2001. With the additional 1-percentage-pointincrease in the proportion with a lone parent who worked part-time, this resulted ina 5-percentage-point decline in the proportion of children with a lone parent whowas not working, meaning not working for pay or not self-employed.

In Canada, the highest proportions of children aged 5 to 14 with two parents,or a lone parent, who worked full-time were found in Prince Edward Island, Yukon,and Northwest Territories.


22 Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-582

Living arrangements of the populationaged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity

Children aged 5 to 14

Between 1996 and 2001, the census years that offer comparable Aboriginal identitydata, the proportion of 5- to 14-year-old Aboriginal children living with both parents(married or common-law) remained fairly constant (Chart A.4.4 and Table A.4.3).The proportion of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living with a lone parent increasedfrom 29% to 35%, while the proportion of those not living with their parents decreasedfrom 10% to 5%.

20

30

40

50

60

10

0

70

Chart A.4.4

Living arrangements of Aboriginal identity children aged 5 to 14 and 15 to 19, Canada, 1996 and 2001



20

30

40

50

60

10

0

70

Living withboth parents

Living withlone parent

Not livingwith any parent

Living withboth parents

Living withlone parent

Not livingwith any parent

Children aged 5 to 14 Children aged 15 to 19

1996

2001

In 2001, the proportion of children aged 5 to 14 living with a lone parent was36% in the North American Indian population, 33% in the Métis population, and24% in the Inuit population.

In the provinces and territories in 2001, the proportions of Aboriginal childrenaged 5 to 14 living in lone-parent families ranged from 19% in Newfoundland andLabrador to 40% in Saskatchewan. Between 1996 and 2001, the largest increases inthe proportion of Aboriginal children living with a lone parent were in New Brunswick(9 percentage points), Saskatchewan (8 percentage points), and Yukon (12 percentagepoints).

Teens aged 15 to 19

Turning to Aboriginal teens, the proportion of 15- to 19-year-olds living with bothparents (married or common-law) remained fairly stable in 2001 (Chart A.4.4 andTable A.4.3). The proportion of those aged 15 to 19 who were living with a loneparent increased from 25% in 1996 to 29% in 2001, while the proportion of those notliving with their parents declined from 23% to 18%. Although the proportion ofAboriginal teenagers not living with their parents generally decreased over the five-year period, it was higher than the figure for the total Canadian population (7%) in

Family background

23

A4


Chart A.4.5

Living arrangements of Aboriginal identity population aged 20 to 24, Canada, 1996 and 2001


20

30

40

5

15

10

0

25

1996

2001

35

20

30

40

5

15

10

0

25

35

Living withparent(s)

Living asspouse

Living aslone parent

Other livingarrangements


2001. This finding may reflect the different family structures typically found in theAboriginal and the non-Aboriginal populations; for example, many Aboriginal peopletend to live with extended family members. Indeed, 2001 Census data reveal thatamong Aboriginal teens aged 15 to 19 who were not living with their parents, 10%were living with “non-family persons” (relatives and/or non-relatives).

In 2001, the proportion of 15- to 19-year-olds living with a lone parent was30% in the North American Indian population, 27% in the Métis population, and21% in the Inuit population. The proportion of those not living with their parentswas 20% in the North American Indian population, 15% in the Métis population,and 19% in the Inuit population.

In the provinces and territories in 2001, the proportions of Aboriginal teenagersaged 15 to 19 living in lone-parent families ranged from 15% in Newfoundland andLabrador to 37% in Yukon. The largest increases between 1996 and 2001 in theproportion of Aboriginal teenagers living with a lone parent were in Yukon(14 percentage points) and the Northwest Territories (7 percentage points).

Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal people aged 15 to 19who were lone parents themselves increased from 2% to 4%. In 2001, this proportionwas highest in the North American Indian (5%) and the Inuit (4%) populations, andlowest in the Métis population (2%).

Among the provinces and territories in 2001, Manitoba and Saskatchewanhad the highest proportions of 15- to 19-year-old Aboriginal teens who were loneparents (5% in both jurisdictions). Between 1996 and 2001, the largest increase in theproportion of Aboriginal teens in this age group who were lone parents was in Nunavut(4 percentage points).

Young adults aged 20 to 24

Census data from both 1996 and 2001 show that the majority of young Aboriginaladults aged 20 to 24 were not living with their parents: 64% and 62%, respectively(Chart A.4.5 and Table A.4.3). These proportions were lower in the total Canadianpopulation (50% in 1996 and 43% in 2001).


24

A4


A growing proportion of young Aboriginal adults were living as lone parents:12% in 2001 versus 9% in 1996 (Table A.4.3). In the provinces and territories in2001, the proportions of young Aboriginal adults aged 20 to 24 who were lone parentswere highest in Manitoba (17%) and Saskatchewan (18%). The largest increases inthe proportion of young Aboriginal adults living as lone parents were in Prince EdwardIsland (9 percentage points) and Yukon (7 percentage points). The increase in singleparenting among young adults occurred in the North American Indian (5 percentagepoints) and the Inuit (6 percentage points) populations, but not among the Métis.

Work activity of parents

Similar to the findings for the total Canadian population, Aboriginal parents of school-age children were more likely to work full-time in 2001 than in 1996 (Table A.4.4).Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living intwo-parent families where both parents worked full-time increased from 35% to 41%.

In 2001, the highest proportion of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living intwo-parent families where both parents worked full-time was found among the Métispopulation (46%), followed by the Inuit (40%) and North American Indian (38%)populations. These proportions are below the figure for the total Canadian population(49%), and reflect the high unemployment rate in some First Nations communitiesand in the North.

Higher proportions of lone parents were working in 2001 than in 1996. Theproportion of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living with one parent who workedfull-time rose from 35% to 45%. The proportion who had a lone parent working part-time increased from 14% to 15%.

The proportion who had a lone parent working part-time increased from 14%to 15%. This resulted in a decline from 51% to 40% in the overall proportion ofAboriginal children living with a lone parent who was not working; that is, not workingfor pay or not self-employed.

In 2001, the highest proportion of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living witha lone parent who did not work for pay or was not self-employed was found amongthe North American Indian population (43%), followed by the Inuit (33%) and theMétis (30%) populations. These proportions are all above the 24% estimated for thetotal Canadian population.

In the provinces and territories in 2001, the highest proportions of Aboriginalchildren aged 5 to 14 with two parents or a lone parent working full-time were foundin Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, and NorthwestTerritories. Again, reflecting the high unemployment rate in some First Nationscommunities, the highest proportions of Aboriginal children aged 5 to 14 living witha lone parent who did not work for pay or who was not self-employed were seen inManitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.

B

25

Chapter B Charts


Chapter B

Financing education systems 27

B1 Total expenditure on education 29

B2 Public and private expenditureon education 33

B3 Student debt 39

26



Chart B.1.1Indices of change in combined public and privateexpenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars,by level of education, Canada, 1997/1998 to2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100) 30

Chart B.1.2Combined public and private expenditure oneducation as a percentage of GDP, Canada andjurisdictions, 2002/2003 31

Chart B.2.1Percentage change in public expenditure oneducation between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003,Canada and jurisdictions 34

Chart B.2.2Private expenditure as a percentage of totalexpenditure on education, Canada andjurisdictions, 2002/2003 35

Chart B.2.3Average undergraduate university tuition fees,Canada and Atlantic provinces, 1991/1992 to2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars) 36

Chapter B Charts

Chart B.2.4Average undergraduate university tuition fees,Canada, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, 1991/1992 to2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars) 37

Chart B.2.5Average undergraduate university tuition fees,Canada, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia,1991/1992 to 2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars) 37

Chart B.3.1Percentage of graduates who borrowed fromgovernment student loan programs, 1995 and 2000graduates, Canada and provinces 40

Chart B.3.2Percentage of 2000 graduates still owing to governmentstudent loan programs 2 and 5 years after graduation,Canada and provinces 42

Financing education systems


Financing education systems

Introduction

One of the key indicators of social and economic progress in Canada and in a growingnumber of other countries throughout the world is the proportion of youth who attainhigh literacy standards and complete advanced levels of education. These highereducational expectations, driven in part by the needs of a global knowledge society,ensure that education remains a funding priority for many governments and privatehouseholds.

While investment in education is now seen as central to the development ofadvanced societies, no absolute standards exist for measuring the financial resourcesneeded to ensure optimal returns for individual students or, for that matter, to societyas a whole. Nonetheless, comparisons between provinces and territories and betweencountries can provide a starting point for discussion by evaluating the variation ineducational investment that exists between jurisdictions.

Indicator B1 examines the combined expenditure on education in Canada bygovernments and private households. In addition to the overall pattern of public andprivate expenditure across the country, expenditure amounts are displayed per capitaand in relation to gross domestic product (GDP).

Indicator B2 looks at public expenditure relative to expenditure on othergovernment programs, as well as private expenditure on education, includingexpenditure by households and by individuals on university tuition.

Finally, Indicator B3 examines debt loads incurred by college and universitystudents.

29

B1



Context

This indicator displays total education expenditure in Canada, from both public(federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal governments) and private sources.1

Governments provide most of the funding for education at all levels, but manyhouseholds also pay for education services or resources. To obtain a full picture ofeducation expenditure in Canada, this indicator includes expenditure by all orders ofgovernment (including crown corporations and agents, federal research fundingcouncils, federal funding to schools on reserve), and by the private sector andhouseholds. The results cannot be used to compare provincial/territorial governments’funding commitment to education.

The measures reported here should be interpreted in the light of various inter-related supply and demand factors, including the demographic structure of thepopulation, enrolment rates at different levels of education, and changes in the overallvalue of goods and services produced in the economy. It is also important to note that,although amounts are presented in constant dollars in order to provide a consistentpicture over time, the impact of spending on education in any jurisdiction will beaffected by a number of factors, including changes to the cost of living withinjurisdictions.

Findings

Total expenditure

Between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, total education expenditure in Canada rose 12%in 2001 constant dollars2 to $72.3 billion, with 67% of the overall increase occurringat the postsecondary level (Tables B.1.1 and B.1.2).

Universities recorded the greatest share of the postsecondary increases;expenditure at this level increased 42% over the six-year period. Expenditure at theelementary-secondary level showed much less change, increasing 6% to $42.7 billion,while expenditure at the college level increased and then remained stable. The trade-vocational level showed an overall decline, 15% lower in 2002/2003 compared with1997/1998 (Chart B.1.1).


30

B1


Over the six-year period, total expenditure increased across all jurisdictions,with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick, where itdropped by 14% and 2%, respectively, mostly as a result of spending reductions intrade-vocational programs. The decline in expenditure in Newfoundland and Labradorwas, in fact, a return to “normal” expenditure levels after a significant but short-termfunding increase in the mid-1990s, notably for the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. Formost jurisdictions, expenditure increases were higher at the postsecondary level thanat the elementary-secondary level. Expenditure at the elementary-secondary levelgenerally increased (Tables B.1.1 and B.1.2).

In 2002/2003, 59% of total expenditure was at the elementary-secondary leveland 41% at the postsecondary level (Table B.1.3).

Expenditure per capita

Among the provinces, average per capita expenditure for 2002/2003 ranged from$2,029 to $2,748. Reflecting higher operating costs and a much younger population,average per capita expenditure in the territories ranged from $4,311 in the Yukon to$5,938 in Nunavut (Table B.1.4).

Average Canadian per capita expenditure increased 7% to $2,305 between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003. In most jurisdictions, per capita expenditure increased by between5% and 16% between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003. Saskatchewan showed the greatestincrease in per capita expenditure over this period, at 19%, becoming the provincewith the highest education spending on a per capita basis. Per capita expenditure,however, remained relatively stable in New Brunswick and Ontario, while decreasingin Newfoundland and Labrador. The pronounced drop in Newfoundland and Labradorcan be attributed to the end of short-term funding increases, notably for the AtlanticGroundfish Strategy, and the return to normal expenditure levels.

Chart B.1.1

Indices of change in combined public and private expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100)

1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2002/20032001/2002

100

90

140

120

110

150index index

130

80

100

90

140

120

110

150

130

80

Source: Table B.1.2.

Pre-elementary, elemen-tary-secondary

Trade-vocational

College

University


31

BBBBB1


In interpreting this measure, comparisons between jurisdictions should be madewith care. Per capita expenditure are obviously affected by changes to the size of thepopulation as a whole, but factors that influence spending on education also need tobe taken into account, such as the size of the school-age population and the cost ofliving. Indicators A1, C2, and D1 provide information on demographic and enrolmentfactors.

Expenditure relative to GDP

In Canada, total public and private expenditure on education increased 14% whileGDP rose 17% (both based on current dollar terms; data not shown), resulting intotal education spending dropping from 6.6% of GDP in 1999/2000 to 6.4% in 2002/2003 (Table B.1.5). Expenditure as a proportion of GDP increased in Quebec,Saskatchewan and British Columbia and remained stable in Prince Edward Islandand Manitoba, while decreasing in the other jurisdictions.

Expenditure relative to GDP in 2002/2003 ranged from 18.5% in Nunavut to5.3% in Alberta (Chart B.1.2 and Table B.1.5). However, comparisons betweenjurisdictions should be made with care. Expenditure on education relative to GDPare affected by the size of, and changes in, GDP (which is a disadvantage for provinceswith large GDP or those in which GDP is growing rapidly), as well as by the size andchanges to the size of the school age population (which disadvantages provinces withrelatively small, or a declining, school age population). Furthermore, richer provincessuch as Ontario and Alberta require a lower percentage of expenditure on educationrelative to GDP to maintain a given level of educational services. Appendix 3 in the2007 PCEIP Handbook shows changes in provincial-territorial GDP over the period.

Chart B.1.2

Combined public and private expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, Canada and jurisdictions, 2002/2003


2

16

18

0

20

4

6

8

10

12

14

2

16

18

0

20

4

6

8

10

12

14

Note: Data cannot be used to compare provincial/territorial governments’ funding commitment to education.


Y.T. B.C.Nvt. Alta.P.E.I.N.W.T.Sask. Ont.Can.Man. N.L.Que. N.B.N.S.


32

B1


Endnotes

1. The 2007 PCEIP Handbook provides information on the various components that go into thecalculation of expenditure. Per student expenditure data are not available for this edition of thePCEIP Report because comparable enrolment and expenditure data were not available at the timethe publication was being prepared. Information on per student expenditure will be included infuture editions.

2. Unless otherwise indicated, all amounts are in 2001 constant Canadian dollars.

33

B2


Public and privateexpenditure on education

Context

This indicator is intended to provide policy makers with a better understanding ofshifts that may be occurring in expenditure on education and to inform relateddiscussions about student access to education in Canada.

Governments in Canada provide funding to cover the costs of basic educationat the elementary and secondary levels. Nonetheless, parents often incur costs formaterials and supplies, and for a variety of school activities. In some cases, parentspay for private tutoring or enroll their children in private schools where they paytuition fees.

At the postsecondary level, community colleges and universities receivesubstantial funding from governments, but also rely on student tuition fees as animportant source of revenue. Students and their parents also assume greaterresponsibility at this level for books and supplies, and for travel and living costs.

The 2007 PCEIP Handbook provides information on the various componentsthat go into the calculation of expenditure.

Findings

In the 2005/2006 fiscal year, governments spent $75.7 billion1,2 on all levels ofeducation, which represented 16.1% of total public expenditure (Table B.2.1).Spending on health that year accounted for 19.9% of public expenditure. In1997/1998, education and health expenditure were roughly the same. However, from1997/1998 to 2003/2004, health expenditure increased 37% while educationexpenditure increased 11%. Then, from 2003/2004 to 2005/2006, both types ofexpenditure increased almost equally (11% for education and 12% for health).

Public expenditure

Between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, combined federal, provincial/territorial andmunicipal government expenditures in Canada grew by 10% at the postsecondarylevel; expenditure at the elementary-secondary level increased by 5% (Table B.2.2and Table B.2.3). Over this period, total government expenditure on educationincreased across western provinces and in the territories, as well as in Prince EdwardIsland and Quebec, with the increases ranging from 8% in Prince Edward Island to22% in Alberta (Chart B.2.1). Expenditure decreased by 2% in Nova Scotia and


34

B2


Ontario, and by 16% in Newfoundland and Labrador. The drop in Newfoundlandand Labrador was due to the end of short-term funding increases (notably for theAtlantic Groundfish Strategy) and the return to normal expenditure levels.

For most jurisdictions, expenditure increases were higher at the postsecondarylevel than at the elementary-secondary level. However, Newfoundland and Labrador,Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick experienced a decrease in postsecondary expenditure,due to a drop in expenditure on trade-vocational programs (Table B.2.2).

Private expenditure

In 1997/1998, households and other private sources spent $9.0 billion on education.Five years later, private expenditure had reached $12.8 billion, a 42% increase, aboutsix times the percentage increase in the sector’s public expenditure over the sameyears. In 2002/2003, $3.6 billion in private expenditure was spent at the elementary-secondary level and $9.2 billion at the postsecondary level (Tables B.2.4 and B.2.5).The overall amount of private spending on education is affected by changes inparticipation levels, as well as by costs such as tuition fees. Information onpostsecondary enrolment is provided in Indicator D1.

In 2002/2003, private expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure oneducation was close to 18% at the Canada level. This percentage ranged from 10% to24% among the provinces, and between 3% and 5% among the territories (Chart B.2.2).

Chart B.2.1

Percentage change in public expenditure on education between 1997/19981 and 2002/2003,Canada and jurisdictions

25

10

0

-5

-20

-15

-10

5

15


20

Y.T. N.S.B.C. Nvt.Alta. P.E.I.N.W.T. Sask. Ont.Can.Man. N.L.Que. N.B.

25

10

0

-5

-20

-15

-10

5

15

20

1. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. As a result, the data in this chart for Nvt. andthe N.W.T. apply to the 1999/2000 to 2002/2003 period.



35

BBBBB2


0

10

15

20

25

30

Private spending at the elementary-secondary level represented 8% of totalelementary-secondary expenditure compared with 22% at the college level and 39%at the university level (Table B.2.6). The higher proportion of private expenditure atthe postsecondary level reflects the role of tuition fees, which almost all college anduniversity students pay. Although some families send their children to privateelementary-secondary schools, most schooling at this level is publicly funded.

For all jurisdictions, except Nunavut, the proportion of private spending tototal spending at the postsecondary level was much higher than at the elementary-secondary level (Table B.2.6). Private spending on postsecondary education rangedbetween 3% and 12% in the territories. Among the provinces, private spending rangedfrom 20% of total spending at the postsecondary level in Newfoundland and Labradorand Prince Edward Island to 47% in Nova Scotia.

Expenditure by households

In 2004, 43% of Canadian households incurred educational expenses for such itemsas textbooks, school supplies and tuition costs, spending an average of $2,484(Table B.2.7). The highest costs were for tuition fees: an average of $1,392 forelementary-secondary tuition among households that incurred this expense, and anaverage of $3,593 for postsecondary tuition.

The percentage of households incurring educational expenses among theprovinces ranged from 36% in New Brunswick to 46% in Alberta. Only 9% ofhouseholds paid tuition at the pre-elementary and elementary-secondary levelscompared with 18% at the postsecondary level. Among the households incurringtuition costs at the pre-elementary and elementary-secondary levels, the averageamount spent varied widely, from less than $500 in Newfoundland and Labrador,New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, to $2,677 in Nova Scotia and $3,237 in Ontario(Table B.2.7). For households that paid postsecondary tuition, average expenditurewas lowest in Quebec, at $1,655, and highest in Nova Scotia at $4,693.

Y.T.N.S. B.C. Nvt.Alta. P.E.I. N.W.T.Sask.Ont. Can. Man. N.L.Que. N.B.

Chart B.2.2

Private expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on education, Canada and jurisdictions, 2002/2003


5

0

10

15

20

25

30

5



36

B2


University tuition fees

Table B.2.8 presents tuition fees in constant dollars, from 1991/1992 to 2005/2006,in order to allow comparison over time. Undergraduate university tuition fees increasedover this period from an average of $1,998 to $3,788 at the Canada level.Interprovincially, Nova Scotia had the highest tuition fees in 2005/2006, at $5,571,while Quebec had the lowest at $1,717. Over the 15-year period, tuition fees morethan doubled in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta while Quebec tuitionfees were up only 15% (Table B.2.8 and Charts B.2.3 through B.2.5). Tuition feesincreased in almost all provinces in the 1990s. Since 1999/2000, tuition fees inNewfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Manitoba have dropped. Table B.2.9presents tuition fees in current dollars for 2006/2007; average undergraduate tuitionfees in Canada were $4,347.

Chart B.2.3

Average1 undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada and Atlantic provinces, 1991/1992 to 2005/2006(in 2001 constant dollars)

dollars dollars6,000

0

1,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1991/1992 1993/1994 1995/1996 1997/1998 1999/2000 2001/2002 2003/2004 2005/2006

6,000

0

1,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

Canada



Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

1. Both in- and out-of-province students are included in the weighted average calculations; foreign students are not included.Source: Table B.2.8.


37

BBBBB2


Chart B.2.4

Average1 undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, 1991/1992 to 2005/2006(in 2001 constant dollars)


0

1,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1991/1992 1993/1994 1995/1996 1997/1998 1999/2000 2001/2002 2003/2004 2005/2006

6,000

0

1,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000 Canada

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba


Chart B.2.5

Average1 undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia,1991/1992 to 2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars)


0

1,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1991/1992 1993/1994 1995/1996 1997/1998 1999/2000 2001/2002 2003/2004 2005/2006

6,000

0

1,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000Canada

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia



38

B2


In 1991/1992, average tuition fees for various programs ranged from a low of$1,869 in education to a high of $2,531 in dentistry. By 2005/2006, the gap hadwidened significantly, with fees ranging from $2,948 in education to $11,724 indentistry (Table B.2.10). Over the fifteen years, dentistry tuition jumped 363% whileeducation-faculty tuition increased a relatively low 58%. The programs that experiencedthe biggest increases in tuitions include dentistry, medicine and law. In 2006/2007,dentistry had the highest average tuition fees, $13,463 in current dollars, followed bymedicine at $10,553 and then law, at $7,221 (Table B.2.11).

Apart from tuition fees, the only other information available is on extracompulsory fees institutions charge for athletics, health services, student association,etc. In 2001 constant dollars, the weighted average additional compulsory fees forundergraduates in Canada were $339 in 1993/1994 and $535 in 2005/2006 (data notshown in a specific table of this publication).

Private revenues at universities

At the Canada level, the share of total university revenues accounted for by studentfees and other non-government revenues decreased slightly from 1999/2000 to 2004/2005. Among provinces in 2004/2005, Nova Scotia, at 61.6%, had the highestproportion of private revenues, rising from 58.4% five years earlier. Quebec, at 31.9%,had the smallest proportion of private funding in 2004/2005, compared with 36.4%five years earlier (Table B.2.12).

These five-year estimates indicate that the trend in the 1990s for student feesand other non-government revenues to cover a larger share of total university revenueshas moderated. During the 1990s, the proportion of university revenues fromgovernment sources dropped by 10 percentage points or more across most provinces(Table B2.10, 2005 PCEIP Report3).

Capital and operating expenditure at universities

In 2004/2005, Canadian universities’ expenditure totaled $21 billion, with capitaland operating expenditure respectively accounting for 10% and 90% of the total. Sixty-one percent of operating expenses were devoted to compensation for academic andother staff (Tables B.2.13 and B.2.14). The percentage breakdown between capitaland operating expenditure, as well as between academic and other compensation, wasrelatively stable between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. Across provinces, the share ofuniversity resources allocated to operating expenditure was generally close to theCanadian average.

Endnotes

1. Data in this paragraph are from the Public Institutions Division and not directly comparable with otherexpenditure data in Chapter B.

2. Unless otherwise indicated, all amounts are in 2001 constant Canadian dollars.3. Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2005. Education indicators in Canada: Report

of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.

39

B3


Student debt

Context

This indicator shows data on student debt from government-run student loanprograms, using data for the classes of 1995 and 2000, the two most recent graduatingclasses for which comparable pan-Canadian survey results are available.

Public debate and concern about rising student debt has grown as the cost tohouseholds of attending postsecondary institutions has risen. Rising student debtlevels among postsecondary graduates raise concerns about access to postsecondaryeducation, especially at the university level where tuition fees are higher. The studentloans programs offered by the federal and provincial governments operate under theprinciple that access to postsecondary education should be independent of anindividual’s financial situation.

These data focus on graduates and do not include students who may not havecompleted their postsecondary studies. Non-completers who have incurred studentdebt may face additional repayment difficulties because of the potential impact ontheir employment opportunities.

Findings

Levels of student debt in Canada

Across Canada, the percentage of college graduates borrowing from governmentstudent loan programs to help finance their postsecondary education remained fairlystable, at 46% in 1995 and 47% in 2000; the percentage of university graduatesborrowing from these programs increased slightly, from 48% in 1995 to 51% in 2000(Table B.3.1). However, those in the 2000 cohort who held government student loandebt owed more (measured in constant dollars) at the time of graduation than their1995 counterparts.

The 2000 university graduates who borrowed from government student loanprograms owed an average of $16,200 at graduation, 26% more than 1995 universitygraduates (Table B.3.1). Similarly, the 2000 college graduates owed an average of$11,700, 21% more than 1995 college graduates. In 1995 government student loanprograms increased the limit on the total amount permissible to borrow in all provincesexcept for Quebec.


40

B3


Student debt by province

The percentage of college graduates who borrowed from government student loanprograms increased in most jurisdictions from 1995 to 2000. Relatively large increasesoccurred in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswickand British Columbia (Chart B.3.1 and Table B.3.1). Quebec was the only provincewhere the percentage of college graduates who borrowed fell, from 57% in 1995 to53% in 2000. In Ontario, the percentage of college graduates who reported havingborrowed from government student loan programs was stable. Similarly, in mostprovinces, there were increases in the percentages of university graduates reportinghaving borrowed from government student loan programs. However, Alberta saw adecrease in the percentage of university graduates reporting having borrowed.

With very few exceptions, student-loan debt levels at graduation increased forboth college and university graduates between 1995 and 2000 (Table B.3.1). Theexceptions are college graduates in Quebec (15% decrease), Saskatchewan(8% decrease), and college and university graduates in British Columbia (12% and3% decrease, respectively). The largest increases in average debt at graduation occurredamong college graduates in Prince Edward Island, where average debt increased 67%and among university graduates in Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario whereincreases in student loan debt were 48% and 43%, respectively.

Among college graduates in 2000, those in Quebec reported the lowest averageamount owed at the time of graduation, $6,700 (Table B.3.1). Corresponding debtlevels for college graduates were highest in Newfoundland and Labrador ($14,500)and Ontario ($14,400). Quebec university graduates in 2000 also reported the lowestamount owed on government student loans upon graduation, at $11,000, on average;Manitoba followed, with university graduates in 2000 reporting owing average debtof $14,400. Government student loan debt levels were highest among the 2000 cohortof university graduates in Newfoundland and Labrador, at $22,500. Tuition fees areone factor in total student debt. Indicator B2 provides information on tuition fees.


New Brunswick


Quebec

Saskatchewan

Nova Scotia

Alberta

Canada

Ontario

British Columbia

Manitoba

Chart B.3.1

Percentage of graduates who borrowed from government student loan programs, 1995 and 2000 graduates,Canada and provinces


0 10 40 50 60 70

percentage

30 8020

0 10 40 50 60 7030 8020percentage

1995

2000

Percentage of collegegraduates who borrowed

Student debt

41

BBBBB3



New Brunswick


Nova Scotia

Saskatchewan

Quebec

Canada

Alberta

Ontario

British Columbia

Manitoba

Chart B.3.1

Percentage of graduates who borrowed from government student loan programs, 1995 and 2000 graduates,Canada and provinces (concluded)


0 10 40 50 60 70

percentage

30 8020

0 10 40 50 60 7030 8020

percentage

1995

2000

Percentage of all universitygraduates who borrowed

Rate of repayment

The percentages of 2000 graduates who did not pursue any further postsecondaryeducation program who still owed debt to government student loan programs twoand five years after graduation were similar for college and university, with both atapproximately 33% two years after graduation and 22% five years after graduation(Chart B.3.2 and Table B.3.2). Provinces with the highest proportions of graduatesstill owing two and five years after graduation were Newfoundland and Labradorand New Brunswick, while Manitoba had the lowest proportion of graduates stillowing in both time periods. At the same time, the highest average debt owed twoand five years after graduation occurred in Newfoundland and Labrador, and thelowest average debt owed occurred in Quebec.


42

B3


In comparing rates of repayment among provinces, it is important to considereconomic factors that may play a role by affecting employment patterns. Indicator E2provides information about transitions to the labour force of postsecondary students.Indicator E3 provides information on unemployment rates by province.


New Brunswick

Quebec

Nova Scotia

Saskatchewan


Alberta

Canada

Ontario

British Columbia

Manitoba

Chart B.3.2

Percentage of 2000 graduates1 still owing to government student loan programs 2 and 5 years after graduation,Canada and provinces

1. Includes only 2000 graduates who did not pursue any further postsecondary education program.Source: Table B.3.2.

0 10 40 50

percentage

3020

0 10 40 503020

percentage

2 years after graduation


College graduates stillowing 2 and 5 years aftergraduation

University graduates stillowing 2 and 5 years aftergraduation

New Brunswick



Nova Scotia

Saskatchewan

Quebec

Canada

Alberta

Ontario

British Columbia

Manitoba

0 10 40 50

percentage

3020

0 10 40 503020

43

Chapter C Charts


Chapter C

Elementary-secondary education 45

C1 Early years and school readiness 47

C2 Elementary-secondary school:enrolments and educators 51

C3 Secondary school graduation 57

C4 Student achievement 61

C5 Information and communicationstechnologies (ICT) 71

C

44



Chapter C ChartsChart C.1.1Prevalence of physical limitations among4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005 48

Chart C.1.2Interest in books and reading among 4- and5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005 49

Chart C.1.3Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised) scores for4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005 50

Chart C.2.1Percentage change in full-time-equivalent enrolmentsin public elementary and secondary schools,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2004/2005 52

Chart C.2.2Percentage change in full-time-equivalent educatorsin public elementary and secondary schools,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2004/2005 53

Chart C.2.3Student-educator ratio in public elementary andsecondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,2004/2005 54

Chart C.2.4Age distribution of full-time educators in publicelementary-secondary schools versus the full-timeemployed labour force, selected provinces, 2004/2005 55

Chart C.2.5Males as a percentage of educators in publicelementary-secondary schools, selected provinces,1997/1998 and 2004/2005 56

Chart C.3.1High school graduation rates, by sex, Canada andjurisdictions, 1997/1998 and 2002/2003 58

Chart C.5.1Average number of students per school computer,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 72

Chart C.5.2Percentage of 15-year-old students who reportedavailability of computers at home and at school,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 73

Chart C.5.3Percentage of 15-year-old students who reportedusing computers at home and at school, Canada,other countries and provinces, 2003 74

Chart C.5.4Percentage of 15-year-old students who reportedusing computers to help them learn school material,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 75

Chart C.5.5Percentage of 15-year-old students who reportedfrequent use of computers at school, by sex,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 76

Elementary-secondary education


Elementary-secondaryeducation

Introduction

The indicators in this chapter offer an overview of pre-elementary, elementary andsecondary education in Canada.

The first indicator, C1, looks at the early years and school readiness of 4- and5-year-olds. Various aspects of their physical, social and cognitive development areexamined to reveal to what extent they are ready to face the academic and socialchallenges of starting school.

As school attendance to age 16 is compulsory in most jurisdictions (to age 18in New Brunswick and Ontario), elementary-secondary enrolment charts across thecountry reflect demographic trends. Kindergarten programs are also now almostuniversal. Indicator C2 examines trends in enrolment, in the student–educator ratio,and in the size, age and distribution of the educator workforce by sex.

Secondary school graduation rates, a traditional measure of educationaloutcomes, are the focus of Indicator C3, which includes comparisons with othercountries, as well as among the Canadian jurisdictions.

Closer attention to measuring outcomes has become a hallmark of educationpolicy in the last 15 years or so. Indicator C4 examines the achievement of students inkey areas such as reading, mathematics and science, and looks at changes in theseachievement results over time.

Many aspects of everyday life now demand some knowledge of informationand communication technology, and education is no exception. Both educators andstudents have become increasingly reliant on computers and information technology,creating the need for equipment and the skills to use it proficiently. Indicator C5presents information on computer use among 15-year-old students—at school and athome. Availability of computers and the Internet, frequency of use, and computers aslearning aids are explored.

47

C1


Early years and schoolreadiness

Context

This indicator examines data on the physical, social and cognitive development of4- and 5-year-olds.

The developmental stages of early childhood are complex, multidimensionaland interdependent. General theory indicates that, among young children, socialdevelopment and behaviour emerge, and are enhanced, through participation instructured activities outside school and activities with friends. Any child’s earlydevelopment can influence how prepared he or she will be to enter the schoolenvironment.

Long-term success in school, as well as later in life, may be influenced by achild’s achievements in the first years of school. But learning does not begin withformal schooling. The first years lay the foundation for reading and writing, andmathematics and science concepts. The importance of these early years has beenrecognized by Canadian governments as “critical in the development and future well-being of the child, establishing the foundation for competence and coping skills thatwill affect learning, behaviour and health.”1

This section is based on pan-Canadian data from the National LongitudinalSurvey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) and portrays the school readiness of youngchildren. Such information helps all levels of government assess whether or not childrenwill be prepared and equipped for the academic and social challenges that will confrontthem when they enter the education system.

Findings

Health status

Overall, Canadian parents of 4- and 5-year-olds believe that their children are ingood health. Parents’ reports on the physical health of their children were capturedin cycle 6 of the NLSCY, conducted in 2004/2005. Most boys (89%) and girls (92%)were considered to be in “excellent” or “very good” health (Table C.1.1).

Only small proportions of 4- and 5-year-old boys and girls had physicalchallenges such as difficulty seeing, hearing, walking, or being understood whenspeaking ( Chart C.1.1 and Table C.1.1). Health problems such as asthma and allergieswere markedly more prevalent among this group of youngsters. In 2004/2005, 18%


48

C1


Chart C.1.1

Prevalence of physical limitations among 4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005

percentage

16140 2 4 6 8 10 12 18 20

Difficulty seeing

Difficulty hearing

Difficulty being understood when speaking

Difficulty walking

Feels pain or discomfort

Has received diagnosis of asthma1

Has long-term allergies

Has long-term bronchitis

16140 2 4 6 8 10 12 18 20

percentage

of boys had received a diagnosis of asthma at some point in their lives, along with 9%of girls. The proportions of boys and girls who were reported to have long-termallergies were 16% and 10%, respectively.

Participation in activities

In 2004/2005, many young children participated in regularly scheduled activitiesoutside of school hours (Table C.1.1). Participation in sports that involved a coach orinstructor was most common, with 38% of girls and 46% of boys reporting at leastweekly involvement. For the boys, this represents a significant increase over the 2000/2001 figure (38%) reported in the 2005 PCEIP Report. Girls were more likely (43%)to take regular lessons in dance, gymnastics or martial arts than were boys (21%).This time, the figure for the girls is significantly higher than it was in 2000/2001(37%). In 2004/2005, participation in music, art and other non-sport activities wasless popular when compared with the other categories, reported for about 11% ofboys and 17% of girls. About 15% of 4- and 5-year-olds participated in clubs, groupsor community programs.

Exposure to books and reading

Once they enter Grade 1, children are expected to begin learning to read and write,two fundamentals that largely condition their experience in school and beyond. Accessto books, pencils and language development in the pre-school years helps preparechildren for the reading and writing challenges they will confront during their formaleducation.

According to their parents, the majority of 4-year-olds looked at books,magazines or comics by themselves, every day at home. But a gender gap emerged:77% of girls spent time with such printed materials every day, compared with 61% ofboys (Chart C.1.2 and Table C.1.1).

Girls

Boys

1. Note that the data now show the percentage of children who have ever been diagnosed with asthma, not just those who had an asthma attackin the 12 months before the survey.

Note: Data points not shown in the chart are too unreliable to be published or have been suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirementsof the Statistics Act. Please see Table C.1.1 for more details.

Source: Table C.1.1.

Early years and school readiness

49

C1


Children are expected to progress from merely looking at books to pretendingto read them. Among 5-year-olds, a large proportion of girls (75%) and boys (67%)had daily contact with books. This means that they either looked at books on theirown or they tried to read by themselves.

Young children who are surrounded by reading material, who see adults readingregularly, and who are read to at a very early age often develop their own appetite forreading. This seems to have been the environment for many 4- and 5-year-olds in2004/2005. About 6 in 10 had an adult who read to them every day (Table C.1.1).This also implies, however, that well over one-third of young children will enter schoolwithout such exposure to books and other printed material.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

The NLSCY uses a more objective measure of the child’s cognitive development tocomplement the perceptions reported by parents. The Peabody Picture VocabularyTest—Revised (PPVT-R) assesses receptive vocabulary at ages 4 and 5. Receptivevocabulary refers to the understood vocabulary of the child: that is, the number ofwords a child understands when he or she hears them spoken. A child’s (or adult’s)understood vocabulary level is measured relative to other individuals of the same age.

In 2004/2005, the vast majority of 4- and 5-year-olds had normal or advancedreceptive language skills on the PPVT-R; about 14% performed relatively poorly.About the same proportions of boys and girls were high performers (Chart C.1.3 andTable C.1.2); differences by sex are not statistically significant.

Girls

Boys

100

0

80

60

40

20

Child looks at books or tries toread on his/her own, daily

100

0

80

60

40

20

Child looks at books, magazines,comics on his/her own, daily

4-year-olds 5-year-olds

Chart C.1.2

Interest in books and reading among 4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005




50

C1


Normal receptivelanguage skills

Delayed receptivelanguage skills

Advanced receptivelanguage skills


Boys

100

0

100

0

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

Girls BoysGirls


Findings from the NLSCY confirm that children who demonstrated somedelay in motor/social development are three times as likely to have vocabulary problemstwo years later. And those who experienced vocabulary problems (as measured withthe PPVT-R) are twice as likely to experience school achievement problems two yearslater.2

Chart C.1.3

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised) scores for 4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005

Note: This chart contains certain estimates with relatively high coefficients of variation. Please see Table C.1.2 for more details.


Endnotes

1. First Ministers’ Meeting, News release: Communiqué on Early Childhood Development. Ottawa,September 11, 2000.

2. Ivan P. Fellegi, Presentation at “Investing in Children: A National Research Conference,” Ottawa,October 27-29, 1998.

51

C2


Elementary-secondary school:enrolments and educators

Context

Information on enrolment at the elementary-secondary level, as well as on the numberof educators, is captured in this indicator. A student–educator ratio, which measuresthe total human resources available to students, is also presented, along with somecharacteristics of the educator workforce.

As school attendance is compulsory to age 16 or 18, elementary-secondaryenrolment largely reflects demographic trends. The size of the school-age populationin any jurisdiction is affected not only by the birth rate within that jurisdiction, butalso by migration into and out of the jurisdiction. Areas experiencing a substantivedecline in the school-age population may also face underused facilities and pressureto reassess staff levels and to reduce the programs offered. Conversely, areas in whichenrolments have been rising may encounter pressure to increase funding to maintainper-student expenditure.

Secondary school enrolment is also affected by the number of years of studyrequired for secondary graduation, as well as postsecondary entrance requirements.For example, in some jurisdictions, the prerequisite for postsecondary attendance isthe completion of specific courses rather than a secondary school diploma.

Educators represent one of the largest occupational groups in Canada. Salariesof educators represent about two-thirds of total expenditures in elementary-secondaryeducation. A number of important policy issues relate to this workforce, includingsupply and demand, full- versus part-time employment, and sex and age distribution.

The data presented in this indicator refer to enrolment and educators in publicschools only, whereas the finance data presented in Chapter B include both publicand private schools. As a result, expenditures per student cannot be calculated.

Findings

Overall enrolment

Between the 1997/1998 and 2004/2005 school years, the number of full-timeequivalent (FTE) enrolments in public elementary and secondary schools rose inonly two jurisdictions: Alberta and Ontario (Chart C.2.1 and Table C.2.1). Migrationwas behind the increase in Alberta, as the province’s strong economy continued toattract people from other provinces. High levels of international immigrationaccounted for the rise in Ontario.


52

C2


Chart C.2.1

Percentage change in full-time-equivalent enrolments in public elementary and secondary schools, Canada andjurisdictions,1, 2, 3 1997/1998 to 2004/2005

The largest decline in FTE enrolments, 22%, occurred in Newfoundland andLabrador, as the province continued to lose population through an extremely strongnet migration outflow to other provinces, combined with the lowest fertility rate inthe country.


5

-20

-15

-10

5

-20

-15

-10

Educators

All employees in the public school system (either school-based or school district-based) who are required to have teaching certification as a condition of theiremployment are considered to be educators. This definition, therefore, goes beyondclassroom teachers and includes principals, vice-principals, and professional non-teaching staff (consultants, guidance counsellors and religious and pastoral counsellors,for example).

There were approximately 310,000 educators country wide in 2004/2005, up2.4% over 1997/1998 (Table C.2.2). In most jurisdictions, the number of educators(measured in full-time equivalents, or FTEs) increased over this eight-year period.Declines were recorded in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswickand British Columbia (Chart C.2.2 and Table C.2.2).

-5

0

-5

0

Y.T.N.S.B.C.Nvt.Alta. P.E.I.N.W.T. Sask.Ont. Can. Man. N.L.Que. N.B.-25-25

1. Until 2000/2001 in Que. and Man., includes enrolments in adult programs and professional training under the authority of the school boards ordistricts. Certain jurisdictions include all students whether or not they are funded, while others include only funded students.

2. In Ont., excludes publicly funded hospital and provincial schools, care, treatment and correctional facilities.3. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.

in 1999/2000. As a result, the overall percentage change is calculated for the period 1999/2000 to 2004/2005 for the N.W.T. and Nvt.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.


Elementary-secondary school participation

53

C2


Student-educator ratio

Between 1997/1998 and 2004/2005, the student–educator ratio in public elementary-secondary schools fell from 16.6 to 15.9 at the Canada level, meaning there werefewer students per educator (Table C.2.3). The general decline in the ratio is seenacross jurisdictions over this period.

In 2004/2005, the number of students per educator ranged between lows of13.6 in Newfoundland and Labrador and 11.5 in Yukon to a high of 17.5 in BritishColumbia (Chart C.2.3 and Table C.2.3). The ratio was at or above the 15.9 figurefor Canada in about half of the remaining jurisdictions.

The student–educator ratio should not be taken as a measure of classroom sizebecause the definition of “educator” captures more than just classroom teachers. Inaddition, average classroom size depends not only on the number of teachers andstudents, but also on the hours of instructional time per week, the per-teacher hoursworked, and the division of time between classroom instruction and other activities.


20

10

-20

-15

20

15

-20

-15

-5

0

-10

5

Y.T. B.C.Nvt. N.S.Sask.Alta. P.E.I. Man. N.L.Can. N.B.N.W.T. Que.Ont.

Chart C.2.2

Percentage change in full-time-equivalent educators1 in public elementary and secondary schools,Canada and jurisdictions,2, 3, 4, 5 1997/1998 to 2004/2005

10

-5

0

-10

15

5

1. Full-time equivalent (FTE) educator is defined as the number of full-time educators on September 30th (or as close as possible thereafter) of the schoolyear, plus the sum of part-time educators according to their percentage of a full-time employment allocation (determined by the province or territory).

2. In Ont., excludes publicly funded hospital and provincial schools, care, treatment and correctional facilities.3. In Sask., includes educators in provincially funded schools (including “associated independent” and “historic” high schools) and excluding “independent”

“First Nations” schools and postsecondary sites.4. All educators in Lloydminster are included in Sask.’s counts and none of them are captured in the counts for Alta.5. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.

in 1999/2000. As a result, the overall percentage change is calculated for the period 1999/2000 to 2004/2005 for the N.W.T. and Nvt.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.



54

C2


Composition of the full-time educatorworkforce

For 2004/2005, the number of full-time educators (i.e., a headcount) in publicelementary-secondary schools is available for some, but not all, Canadian jurisdictions.An estimate at the Canada level is not available because of differences in reportingthat result in a lack of comparable data from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia,Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The first four jurisdictionsreport data as a headcount of all teachers, without distinguishing between full- andpart-time educators; the last two report on full-time equivalent educators.

Among the provinces with comparable headcounts for 2004/2005, Quebec andOntario had the largest numbers of full-time educators in 2004/2005 (Table C.2.4),as expected given the large populations in these provinces. In both provinces, thenumber of female educators far exceeded the number of male educators in all agegroups—a situation also seen in the other provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador,New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia).

Regardless of jurisdiction, most full-time educators, whether male or female,were in the 30-to-59 age range in 2004/2005 (Table C.2.4). British Columbia hadthe lowest proportion of younger educators, with 6% under 30 years of age.Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest proportion of educators in the 40-to-49 age group (40%). The proportions of full-time educators in the oldest age groupwere very low, with few working after the age of 60.

Chart C.2.3

Student-educator ratio in public elementary and secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions, 2004/2005

students per educator students per educator

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5

0Y.T.B.C. Nvt. N.S. Sask.Alta. P.E.I. Man. N.L.Can. N.B. N.W.T. Que.Ont.

Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.


Elementary-secondary school participation

55

C2


Among those jurisdictions for which data are available, a comparison of theage distribution of full-time educators versus that of the full-time labour force indicatesthat, in general, much larger proportions of educators are approaching retirement(Chart C.2.4 and Table C.2.5). This is especially noticeable in British Columbia,where 42% of educators were aged 50 or older in 2004/2005, contrasting with 26% ofindividuals in the total employed labour force. Newfoundland and Labrador andSaskatchewan, on the other hand, had higher proportions of 50-plus workers in theoverall employed labour force.

Chart C.2.4

Age distribution of full-time educators in public elementary-secondary schools1 versus the full-time employed labour force,2

selected provinces, 2004/2005


1

1. Less than 302. 50 and over

2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

B.C.Sask. Alta.N.L. N.B. Que. Ont.

Educators

Labour force0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

45

0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

45

1. According to the age distributions on September 30th (or as close as possible thereafter) in the school year of full-time educators in public elementary-secondary schools based on data from the Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project. Unknown ages excluded.

2. Based on a monthly average from September to August, Labour Force Survey.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.


Part-time status of educators by sex

As with the headcounts for full-time educators, the figures for those working part-time are not available at the Canada level. Between 1997/1998 and 2004/2005, theoverall proportion of part-time educators remained stable in New Brunswick, anddeclined in Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario (Table C.2.6). In Quebec,Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, the proportions of part-time educatorsincreased over the period.

In 2004/2005, there were far more female educators working part-time in almostall jurisdictions for which comparable data are available (Table C.2.6). Quebec wasthe exception: similar numbers of men and women worked part-time as educators,mirroring the situation in 1999/2000 (the last year for which these data were available).Otherwise, in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan,Alberta, and British Columbia, the number of part-time female educators was atleast double or triple that for males.


56

C2


The proportion of men in the educator workforce, whether full- or part-time,continues to decline. A comparison of 1997/1998 and 2004/2005 data for sevenjurisdictions generally shows declines in the proportions of male educators(Chart C.2.5 and Table C.2.7). One notable exception was in Alberta, where theproportion of part-time educators who were male rose by 10 percentage points overthis period.

Chart C.2.5

Males as a percentage of educators in public elementary-secondary schools, selected provinces, 1997/1998 and 2004/2005


1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

B.C.Sask. Alta.N.L. N.B. Que. Ont.

Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.


1. Full-time2. Part-time

1997/1998

2004/20050

40

353025

20

15

10

5

45

50

0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

4550

57

C3



Context

This indicator presents information on recent trends in high school graduation rates.Overall rates, along with comparisons of graduation rates at typical and after-typicalages of graduation, are presented.

High school graduation is more than a prerequisite for postsecondaryeducation—it is a valuable credential in its own right. People who do not graduatefrom high school have relatively lower labour force participation rates and higherunemployment rates over their lifetime.

Graduation rates can be influenced by a number of factors. For example, astrong labour market with plentiful job opportunities may attract youth who havepassed the age for compulsory school attendance but have not yet graduated fromhigh school. In a weak labour market, however, youth who anticipate challenges infinding jobs may be more inclined to complete secondary school. Graduation ratesalso vary depending on the requirements for graduation. Entrance requirements forpostsecondary education may be linked to completion of specific courses rather thanto high school graduation itself.

High school graduation rates have historically been used as a basic indicator ofeducational outcomes. Trends in these rates are seen as an indicator of access toeducation and, more indirectly, as a measure of achievement. Comparisons acrossjurisdictions may indicate the relative effectiveness of systems in attaining what isuniversally acknowledged as an important educational milestone. Both in-migrationand out-migration may also affect graduation rates. As well, given that somejurisdictions use a different methodology than PCEIP, the provincial secondary schoolgraduation rate figures presented in this report may differ somewhat from thosereported by the jurisdictions themselves.

This section is based on administrative data collected for the Secondary SchoolGraduates Survey. Administrative data represents information acquired from therecords of schools, school boards, or ministries or departments of education. Graduationrates can also be calculated using data from surveys of individuals such as the Youthin Transition Survey (YITS). Generally, these two sources yield somewhat differentestimates of graduation rates because of differences in methodology and coverage(see 2007 PCEIP Handbook). Both sources, however, show increases in the graduationrates over the past decade or so.


58

C3


Findings

Secondary school graduation rates

In 2002/2003, overall graduation rates were highest in Prince Edward Island, NovaScotia and New Brunswick (Chart C.3.1 and Table C.3.1). The lowest were in thethree territories. Among provinces, the lowest overall graduation rate occurred inAlberta where it was 67%.

Chart C.3.1

High school graduation rates, by sex, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 and 2002/20031,2

Nvt.

1. The rate for Can. excludes Que. and Ont.2. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.

in 1999/2000.


Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.B. Que.N.S. Ont. Man. Alta. B.C.Sask. Y.T. N.W.T.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

0

10

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

0

10

1997/1998 2002/2003

Both sexes

Female

Male

Both sexes

Female

Male

British Columbia’s overall graduation rate increased 6 percentage points between1997/1998 and 2002/2003, raising it above the Canada-level average for 2002/20031

while increases in Alberta and the Northwest Territories brought them closer to theaverage for Canada (Table C.3.1). Decreases in the overall graduation rate occurredin Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec; however, therates in these provinces remained above the Canada-level figure. Manitoba also saw a5 percentage-point drop in the overall graduation rate, bringing its rate to 71%, belowthe average for Canada. Manitoba instituted the Adult Learning Centres Act in 2002,which modified reporting requirements for graduates. This may have the effect ofapparently lowering the graduation rate reported here, since Adult Learning Centresare now reported separately.

In Canada as a whole, in 2002/2003, graduation rates were higher for females(78%) than for males (70%), as in 1997/1998. This gender gap was apparent in everyjurisdiction, and at both time periods.

rate rate


59

C3


Overall graduation rates can be broken down into two components: the typical-age graduation rate, based on those graduating at the typical age of graduation oryounger; and the after-typical-age graduation rate, based on those graduating afterthe typical age of graduation.2 Graduation at the typical age or younger generallyequates with starting school at the prescribed time and completing and graduatingwithout interruptions or repetition of grades or of significant numbers of courses.This decomposition shows the contribution to the overall rate of those graduating“on-time” versus those graduating at a later age.

Between 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, Canada’s typical-age graduation rate rosefrom 62% to 67% (Table C.3.1). Over the same period, the after-typical-age ratedecreased from 10% to 7%. This may be linked to the increasingly less common practiceof repeating grades. Most jurisdictions saw an increase in the typical-age graduationrate, ranging from a 2-percentage-point rise in New Brunswick up to 12 percentagepoints in the Northwest Territories.

The after-typical-age graduation rate remained an appreciable component ofthe overall graduation rate in some jurisdictions, and points to the importance ofefforts that encourage young people to stay in school. In New Brunswick, in2002/2003, the after-typical age graduation rate was much higher for males (13%)than for females (7%), while in Quebec, the rate was 25% for males and 23% forfemales (Table C.3.1).


60

C3


Endnotes

1. Data on high school graduation rates for 2002/2003 are available for all provinces and territoriesexcept Ontario. Graduates in Ontario generally represent about 37% of all graduates in Canada.Because of the elimination of Grade 13 (OAC) in Ontario, two cohorts graduated in 2002/2003.These cohorts are not reflected in the pan-Canadian average.

2. It should be noted that the administrative data pertain to graduations from the regular schoolsystem only, and not the “second chance” programs. Hence, these rates are only a measure of after-typical-age graduations in the regular school system and reveal nothing about the level or trend inafter-age-graduations in the “second chance” system.

61

C4


Student achievement

Context

This indicator reports on the achievement of students in four key areas—reading,writing, mathematics and science—and looks at changes in these achievement resultsover time.1 Looking at the relative performance of different groups of students onthe same or similar assessments at different time periods shows whether the level ofachievement is changing. Obviously, scores on an assessment alone cannot be used toevaluate a school system, because many factors combine to produce the average scoresthat are reported here, but they are one of the indicators of overall performance.

The ability to read, understand, and use information is important for learningin school and throughout life. Reading literacy has an impact on an individual’s abilityto participate in society and to understand important public issues. Literacy is alsothe foundation of the skills needed for Canada to compete effectively in a globalmarketplace.

In recent years, there has been a growing realization that the ability to use andapply key mathematics and science concepts is now necessary across a wide range ofoccupations and by citizens in their daily lives. As a result, jurisdictions have revisedand strengthened their mathematics and science curricula to help ensure that allstudents are equipped with these important skills.

Findings

Programme for International StudentAssessment 2000 and 2003

In general, Canadian students performed very well in OECD’s Programme forInternational Student Assessment (PISA) 2003. The major focus of this assessmentwas mathematics, with reading and science as minor domains and problem solving asa minor, one-time domain. The mathematics part of the assessment examined bothoverall mathematical literacy and literacy in four mathematics sub-domains (spaceand shape, change and relationships, quantity, and uncertainty). No sub-domains weremeasured for reading or science in 2003. (PISA 2000 had reading as its major domainand PISA 2006 focused on science.)

The first part of this section summarizes the performance of students at theCanada and provincial levels on the major PISA domains of mathematics (2003) andreading (2000). The second part compares the assessment results in reading, science,and the mathematics sub-domains of space and shape, and change and relationshipsin 2003 with those in 2000.


62

C4


In terms of mathematics literacy, Canada’s performance was strong, with onlyChina-Hong Kong and Finland performing significantly better than Canada(Table C.4.1). Canada had similar results to Japan, and performed significantly betterthan the other G-7 countries.

Among the provinces, the average score for Alberta students was significantlyhigher than the Canadian results overall. Students in the Atlantic provinces and inSaskatchewan performed below the Canadian average, but at or above the OECDaverage.

In the PISA reading assessment undertaken in 2000, Canada’s 15-year-oldsperformed at a high level compared with their counterparts in other OECD countries;only one country, Finland, scored higher than Canada (Table C.4.2). Other countrieswhose average scores were not statistically different from Canada are New Zealand,Australia, Ireland, and Japan. Alberta’s score for the combined reading literacy scalewas higher than the Canadian average and, along with Finland, ranked at the verytop. Average scores for Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchwan, and BritishColumbia were not statistically different from the Canadian average on the combinedscale. Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia scoredbelow the Canadian average on the combined scale, but they all ranked above theOECD average. New Brunswick’s average score was about the same as the OECDaverage.

Comparable data are available through PISA for 2000 and 2003 for reading,science, and the mathematics sub-domains of space and shape, and change andrelationships (Tables C.4.3, C.4.4 and C.4.5). Canada’s average performance was notsignificantly different statistically between 2000 and 2003 for reading or themathematics sub-domain of space and shape, but increased for the sub-domain ofchange and relationships.

No provinces showed statistically significant differences in the sub-domain ofspace and shape, but the average increased in the sub-domain of change andrelationships for Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta,and British Columbia. In both Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan averagereading scores dropped slightly between the two assessments. In science the Canadianaverage decreased slightly, reflecting lower scores in Prince Edward Island, Quebec,and Saskatchewan.

School Achievement Indicators Program

On a pan-Canadian basis, student achievement has been reported through the SchoolAchievement Indicators Program (SAIP)2. It measured the achievements of samplesof 13- and 16-year-old students across Canada in the key subject areas of mathematics,reading, writing, and science. Three cycles of SAIP have been conducted. The firstassessment, in mathematics content and problem solving, was administered in 1993.This was followed by an assessment of reading and writing in 1994, and of science in1996. A second cycle of assessment began in 1997 and was completed in 1999. Thethird cycle lasted from 2001 to 2004.

The SAIP assessment was designed to determine student achievement inrelation to Canada-wide expectations. Performance has been reported on the basis offive levels, with five being the highest level of achievement. Most 13-year-old studentswere expected to achieve at least level 2, while most 16-year-olds were expected toachieve level 3 or better. Because SAIP assessments in all subject areas were generallydesigned to retain sufficient elements from one administration to the next, they allowedfor comparisons of student achievement over time within each subject area.

Student achievement

63

C4


In SAIP, students write the assessments in either English or French. Howeverit is important to note that in the territories, the first language of many students is anAboriginal language. Furthermore, instruction in Aboriginal languages is also growing.The results for students in the territories should be interpreted accordingly. For SAIPmathematics and science assessments, students in Manitoba’s French immersionprogram participated in French and are included with Manitoba (French) results.

Science results for Canadian 13- and 16-year-olds showed some downwardmovement between 1999 and 2004, as measured by the SAIP written scienceassessments. These assessments test students’ knowledge of science concepts and theirapplication in society, as well as their understanding of the nature of science. Between1999 and 2004, the percentage of 13-year-olds performing at level 2 or above inwritten science declined slightly from 73% to 71% (Table C.4.6). Among 16-year-old students, the drop was more marked as 76% of this age group achieved level 3 orhigher in 1999, compared with 64% in 2004 (Table C.4.7). This reflected a drop inthe performance of 16-year-olds in all jurisdictions. Alberta was the only jurisdictionthat was consistently above the pan-Canadian average in written science for both agegroups in all cycles of this assessment (Tables C.4.a and C.4.b).

Table C.4.a

Performance of jurisdictions relative to Canada in SAIP assessments, showing percentageof 13-year-olds at level 2 or above

Jurisdictions performing Jurisdictions performing Jurisdictions performingsignificantly higher than about the same as the significantly lower than thethe Canadian average Canadian average Canadian average

Science (written) 1996

Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and Labrador New Brunswick (French)Nova Scotia (French) Nova Scotia (English) Ontario (English)Saskatchewan New Brunswick (English) Ontario (French)Alberta Quebec (English) Manitoba (French)

Quebec (French) Northwest TerritoriesManitoba (English)British ColumbiaYukon


Alberta Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and LabradorNova Scotia (English) Nova Scotia (French)New Brunswick (English) New Brunswick (French)Quebec (English) Ontario (French)Quebec (French) Manitoba (French)Ontario (English) Northwest TerritoriesManitoba (English) NunavutSaskatchewanBritish ColumbiaYukon


Alberta Quebec (English) Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec (French) Prince Edward IslandOntario (English) Nova Scotia (English)Manitoba (English) Nova Scotia (French)British Columbia New Brunswick (English)

New Brunswick (French)Ontario (French)Manitoba (French)SaskatchewanYukonNorthwest Territories


64

C4


Mathematics (content) 1997

Nova Scotia (French) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward IslandQuebec (English) New Brunswick (French) Nova Scotia (English)Quebec (French) Manitoba (French) New Brunswick (English)Alberta British Columbia Ontario (English)

Yukon Ontario (French)Manitoba (English)SaskatchewanNorthwest Territories


Quebec (French) Quebec (English) Newfoundland and LabradorAlberta Ontario (English) Prince Edward Island

British Columbia Nova Scotia (English)Nova Scotia (French)New Brunswick (English)New Brunswick (French)Ontario (French)Manitoba (English)Manitoba (French)SaskatchewanYukonNorthwest TerritoriesNunavut

Mathematics (problem solving) 1997

Quebec (English) Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec (French) New Brunswick (French) Nova Scotia (English)Alberta Manitoba (French) Nova Scotia (French)

Saskatchewan New Brunswick (English)Ontario (English)Ontario (French)Manitoba (English)British ColumbiaYukonNorthwest Territories


Alberta Nova Scotia (French) Newfoundland and LabradorNew Brunswick (French) Prince Edward IslandQuebec (English) Nova Scotia (English)Quebec (French) New Brunswick (English)Ontario (English) Manitoba (English)Ontario (French) SaskatchewanManitoba (French) British ColumbiaYukon Northwest Territories

Nunavut

Table C.4.a

Performance of jurisdictions relative to Canada in SAIP assessments, showing percentageof 13-year-olds at level 2 or above (continued)


Student achievement

65

C4


Writing 2002

Quebec (English) Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec (French) Prince Edward IslandOntario (English) Nova Scotia (English)Manitoba (English) Nova Scotia (French)Alberta New Brunswick (English)British Columbia New Brunswick (French)

Ontario (French)Manitoba (French)SaskatchewanYukonNorthwest Territories

Notes: The terms “significantly higher” and “significantly lower” refer to statistically significant differences betweenthe results of jurisdictions and the results at the Canada level. Results are statistically different with 95%confidence if the relevant confidence intervals do not overlap.Results for only the written portion of the science assessment are shown in this table. The practical taskscomponent is not reported on because it was not administered in 2004 (though it was administered in1996 and 1999).While SAIP mathematics assessments were conducted in 1993, 1997, and 2001, only those conducted in1997 and 2001 are comparable because of significant changes in scoring methods and assessment designsince 1993.For SAIP mathematics and science assessments, students in Manitoba’s French immersion programparticipated in French and are included with Manitoba (French) results.For the writing assessment, caution is advised when comparing achievement results based on assessmentinstruments prepared in different languages, despite the extensive efforts to ensure equivalence for thesake of equity and fairness for all students. Every language has unique features that are not readily equivalentand render comparisons between languages inherently difficult. On specific jurisdictional results,comparisons are made to the Canadian results by language. That is, English jurisdictions are compared tothe Canadian English results, and the French ones to the Canadian French average.The SAIP Writing III Assessment (2002) is the third in a series of writing assessments. Other writingassessments were administered in 1994 and 1998, but their results cannot be compared with those from2002.Nunavut did not participate in the 2004 science assessment or the 2002 writing assessment.

Sources: CMEC. 2005. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Science III 2004. CMEC.2003. SchoolAchievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Writing III 2002. CMEC. 2002. School AchievementIndicators Program (SAIP). Mathematics III 2001.

Table C.4.a

Performance of jurisdictions relative to Canada in SAIP assessments, showing percentageof 13-year-olds at level 2 or above (concluded)



66

C4


Table C.4.b

Performance of jurisdictions relative to Canada in SAIP assessments, showing percentage of16-year-olds at level 3 or above



Nova Scotia (French) Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec (French) Nova Scotia (English) New Brunswick (French)Alberta New Brunswick (English) Ontario (English)

Quebec (English) Ontario (French)Manitoba (English) Northwest TerritoriesManitoba (French)SaskatchewanBritish ColumbiaYukon


Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and Labrador New Brunswick (French)Quebec (French) Nova Scotia (English) Ontario (French)Manitoba (English) Nova Scotia (French) Northwest TerritoriesAlberta New Brunswick (English) Nunavut

Quebec (English)Ontario (English)Manitoba (French)SaskatchewanBritish ColumbiaYukon


Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward IslandQuebec (French) Nova Scotia (English)Ontario (English) Nova Scotia (French)British Columbia New Brunswick (English)Yukon New Brunswick (French)

Quebec (English)Ontario (French)Manitoba (English)Manitoba (French)SaskatchewanNorthwest Territories


Nova Scotia (French) Nova Scotia (English) Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec (English) New Brunswick (French) Prince Edward IslandQuebec (French) Manitoba (French) New Brunswick (English)

Alberta Ontario (English)Yukon Ontario (French)

Manitoba (English)SaskatchewanBritish ColumbiaNorthwest Territories


Manitoba (French) Nova Scotia (French) Newfoundland and LabradorAlberta New Brunswick (French) Prince Edward Island

Ontario (English) Nova Scotia (English)Manitoba (English) New Brunswick (English)British Columbia Ontario (French)Yukon Saskatchewan

Northwest TerritoriesNunavut

Student achievement

67

C4



Nova Scotia (French) Nova Scotia (English) Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec (English) New Brunswick (French) Prince Edward IslandQuebec (French) Manitoba (English) New Brunswick (English)Alberta Manitoba (French) Ontario (English)

Saskatchewan Ontario (French)British ColumbiaYukonNorthwest Territories


New Brunswick (French) Nova Scotia (French) Newfoundland and LabradorManitoba (French) Ontario (English) Prince Edward IslandAlberta Manitoba (English) Nova Scotia (English)

Saskatchewan New Brunswick (English)British Columbia Ontario (French)

YukonNorthwest TerritoriesNunavut

Writing 2002

Quebec (English) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward IslandNew Brunswick (English) Nova Scotia (English)Quebec (French) Nova Scotia (French)Ontario (English) New Brunswick (French)Manitoba (English) Ontario (French)Saskatchewan Manitoba (French)Alberta YukonBritish Columbia Northwest Territories

Notes: The terms “significantly higher” and “significantly lower” refer to statistically significant differences betweenthe results of jurisdictions and the results at the Canada level. Results are statistically different with 95%confidence if the relevant confidence intervals do not overlap.Results for only the written portion of the science assessment are shown in this table. The practical taskscomponent is not reported on because it was not administered in 2004 (though it was administered in1996 and 1999).While SAIP mathematics assessments were conducted in 1993, 1997, and 2001, only those conducted in1997 and 2001 are comparable because of significant changes in scoring methods and assessment designsince 1993.For SAIP mathematics and science assessments, students in Manitoba’s French immersion programparticipated in French and are included with Manitoba (French) results.For the writing assessment, caution is advised when comparing achievement results based on assessmentinstruments prepared in different languages, despite the extensive efforts to ensure equivalence for thesake of equity and fairness for all students. Every language has unique features that are not readily equivalentand render comparisons between languages inherently difficult. On specific jurisdictional results,comparisons are made to the Canadian results by language. That is, English jurisdictions are compared tothe Canadian English results, and the French ones to the Canadian French average.The SAIP Writing III Assessment (2002) is the third in a series of writing assessments. Other writingassessments were administered in 1994 and 1998, but their results cannot be compared with those from2002.Quebec 16-year-olds did not participate in the 2001 mathematics assessment.Nunavut did not participate in the 2004 science assessment or the 2002 writing assessment.

Sources: CMEC.2005. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Science III 2004. CMEC.2003. SchoolAchievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Writing III 2002. CMEC.2002. School AchievementIndicators Program (SAIP). Mathematics III 2001.

Table C.4.b

Performance of jurisdictions relative to Canada in SAIP assessments, showing percentageof 16-year-olds at level 3 or above (concluded)



68

C4


In previous cycles of the written component of the SAIP science assessment,the performance of Canadian 13-year-olds remained stable between 1996 and 1999at level 2 or above, whereas the achievement of 16-year-olds increased at level 3 orabove (Tables C.4.6 and C.4.7).

The SAIP mathematics assessment had two domains: a content componentand a problem solving component. The content component was designed to test forknowledge of mathematics concepts in the areas of numbers and operations, datamanagement and statistics, algebra and functions, and measurement and geometry;whereas the second component allowed for the demonstration of mathematics problemsolving skills. Although mathematics has been assessed since 1993 in SAIP, onlythose assessments conducted in 1997 and 2001 are comparable because of significantchanges that were made in the scoring methods and assessment design after the 1993assessment. It is important to keep in mind that Quebec 16-year-olds did notparticipate in the 2001 mathematics assessment.

The mathematics performance of 13-year-old students in Canada improvedbetween 1997 and 2001. Over this period, the percentage of 13-year-olds performingat level 2 or above in mathematics content increased by 5 percentage points from 59%to 64%, owing mainly to an improvement in the percentage of students from Ontario(English) achieving level 2 or above. This meant that the performance of 13-year-olds from Ontario (English) was similar to that of Canadian students overall, whereasit was below the Canadian average in 1997 (Table C.4.a). Quebec (French) and Albertawere the only jurisdictions in which 13-year-old students scored above the Canadianaverage in both the 1997 and 2001 mathematics content assessments.

The improvement of Canadian 13-year-olds was more marked in problemsolving as the percentage of this age-group achieving level 2 or higher increased by16 percentage points, from 52% to 68% (Table C.4.6). The results for 13-year-oldstudents in mathematics problem solving increased between 1997 and 2001 in mostjurisdictions, and remained stable in the others. Despite generally positive trendsbetween the 1997 and 2001 mathematics problem solving assessments, only Albertaperformed above the pan-Canadian average in 2001 (as they did in 1997) with therest of the jurisdictions split between those whose results were similar to the Canadianaverage and those performing below the Canadian average (Table C.4.a). Theperformance of 13-year-olds in Nova Scotia (French), Ontario (English and French),and Yukon was below the Canadian average in 1997, but was similar to the country-wide average in 2001.

In 2001, a lower percentage of 16-year-olds in Canada achieved the targetlevel than did 13-year-old students in both mathematics components. In 2001, abouthalf of all 16-year-old students attained the expected level for their age-group in boththe mathematics content and problem solving components. Compared with the 1997assessment, these results represent a decline in performance in mathematics content(when 60% of this age-group achieved level 3 or higher) and an improvement inproblem solving (when about 40% achieved level 3 or higher) (Table C.4.7).

The only jurisdictions whose 16-year-olds outperformed the Canada averageat level 3 or above in the 2001 mathematics content assessment were Manitoba (French)(63%) and Alberta (61%). Both of these jurisdictions had performed at the Canadalevel in 1997. Sixteen-year-old students in Ontario from the English school system,as well as those in Manitoba (English) and British Columbia performed about thesame as the Canadian average in 2001, whereas they had performed below the Canadaaverage in the previous cycle of the mathematics content assessment.

Student achievement

69

C4


As was the case in the mathematics content assessment, 16-year-olds in NewBrunswick (French) and Manitoba (French) performed above the Canadian averagein problem solving, as did those in Alberta. Alberta students also scored above thepan-Canadian average in 1997, whereas those from New Brunswick (French) andManitoba (French) performed about the same as the Canadian average. Theperformance of 16-year-olds in Ontario (English), and British Columbia was belowthe Canadian average in 1997, but about the same as other Canadian students in2001.

Only results for the latest SAIP writing assessment (i.e., SAIP Writing IIIAssessment 2002) are presented in this report because it is not appropriate to compareits results with those of previous writing assessments conducted in 1994 and 1998.The changes that were made to the administration procedures, the tasks, and thescoring criteria for Writing III in 2002 render historical comparisons impossible.

The Writing III assessment indicates that in 2002 most 13-year-old studentsin Canada were writing at or above the expected levels. Across Canada, 84% of 13-year-olds reached level 2 or above. A lower percentage of 16-year-olds, 61%, achievedthe expected level or higher (Tables C.4.6 and C.4.7).


70

C4


Endnotes

1. In this section, comparisons between populations are made with respect to confidence intervals.Differences are said to be statistically significant if the confidence intervals do not overlap (see2007 PCEIP Handbook for more details on confidence intervals). Only differences that arestatistically significant are discussed in this section.

2. The SAIP Science assessment of 2004 was the last SAIP test administered. Starting in 2007,the new Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) is being introduced.

71

C5


Information and communicationstechnologies (ICT)

Context

This indicator presents data on computer use among students—at school and at home.Availability of computers and the Internet, frequency of use, and computers as learningaids are explored.

Information and communications technologies (ICT) are both pervasivesymbols of modern society and essential business tools. With the increasinglywidespread use of computers, equipping students with computer skills has become animportant goal of school systems across the country.

Education authorities across Canada have recognized the importance ofintegrating ICT into teaching and learning. Considerable effort has been devoted toacquiring hardware and software for elementary and secondary schools, providingInternet connections, taking advantage of new learning tools, and helping educatorsimprove their own ICT-related skills.

Many now consider ICT use in schools to be an essential part of a student’seducation. Students who are comfortable with computers and information technologymay find it easier to progress and succeed in school and then to make a smoothtransition into the labour market.

Information on computer use and accessibility is available through the Programfor International Student Assessment (PISA), which assesses the performance andachievements of 15-year-old students. PISA is a collaborative effort among membercountries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. InCanada, PISA is administered through the following partnership: the Council ofMinisters of Education, Canada; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada;and Statistics Canada.

Findings

Students per computer

In 2003, the average number of students per school computer in OECD countrieswas 15 (Chart C.5.1 and Table C.5.1). Ratios varied widely in this internationalcomparison of 15-year-old students. Canada’s average of 6 students per every schoolcomputer is among the most favourable. The ratios for Australia (4:1), the UnitedKingdom (5:1) and Finland (7:1) reflect similar access to computers. And, in Japan,Sweden and the United States, the student-to-computer averages were all under 10.


72

C5


A provincial comparison of 2003 data generally shows little variation in accessto school computers. In 5 of the 10 provinces, the average number of students percomputer was 5 (Chart C.5.1 and Table C.5.1). In the other half, ratios were between4:1 (Manitoba) and 8:1 (Quebec).

Chart C.5.1

Average number of students per school computer,1 Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003

1. Total number of students enrolled in the school divided by the total number of computers for the school in which 15-year-olds are enrolled.


10

number

0 2520155

AustraliaUnited Kingdom

CanadaFinland

SwedenJapan

United StatesSwitzerland

BelgiumItaly

Russian FederationOECD countries (mean)

GermanyMexico

Countries

ManitobaAlbertaOntario

Nova ScotiaSaskatchewan

Newfoundland and LabradorPrince Edward Island

New BrunswickBritish Columbia

Quebec

Provinces

10number

0 2520155

Internet access

The percentage of 15-year-old students with Internet access via their home computerswas generally fairly high throughout the OECD countries in 2003 (Table C.5.1).Across 10 of the 14 reporting countries, over 7 in 10 students had Internet access athome. In Canada, 89% had a home Internet connection, ranking second afterSweden (90%).


73

C5


In every province, a majority of 15-year-old students had access to a homecomputer with an Internet connection. Newfoundland and Labrador (80%) and NewBrunswick (81%) reflected connectivity similar to that of the United Kingdom (81%)and the United States (82%). Overall, provincially, at least 8 in 10, and as many as 9in 10, students had home Internet access.

Access to computers, at home and school

Generally, access to computers—at home and at school—was high among 15-year-old students in the OECD countries. While 17% did not have a computer availableat home, the percentage reporting no availability at school was much lower, at 9%(Chart C.5.2 and Table C.5.2). The availability of home computers was lower thanthe overall OECD average of 83% in Mexico (51%) and the Russian Federation(37%). However, much higher proportions of students in these two countries coulduse computers at school (83% and 76%, respectively) in 2003.

In all Canadian provinces, at least 9 out of 10 15-year-old students had accessto computers at home, and virtually all reported having a computer available at school.

Chart C.5.2

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported availability of computers at home and at school, Canada, other countriesand provinces, 2003

Computer available at schoolComputer available at home

SwedenSwitzerland

Australia

Germany

Canada

Belgium

Finland

United States

OECD countries (mean)Mexico

Russian Federation

Ontario

British Columbia

Alberta

SaskatchewanManitoba

Nova ScotiaPrince Edward Island

QuebecNewfoundland and Labrador

New Brunswick

Australia

Canada

Finland

Sweden

United States

Switzerland

Germany

OECD countries (mean)

Belgium

Mexico

Russian Federation

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Nova Scotia



British Columbia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Countries Countries

Provinces Provinces

Yes No

10080 100800 20 40 60 0 20 40 60




74

C5


Provinces

Frequency of computer use

In almost all of the OECD reporting countries, the 15-year-olds who said they usedcomputers at home and at school were far more likely to report frequent use at home.The overall OECD averages for frequent computer use at home versus school were72% and 41%, respectively (Chart C.5.3 and Table C.5.3). And, on average acrossOECD countries, relatively low proportions of students said they “never” usedcomputers at home (15%) or at school (15%).

A provincial comparison of the frequency of student computer use mirrors theinternational results. Overall, about 90% of students in Canada reported frequentcomputer use at home in 2003, about double that claiming frequent use of schoolcomputers (4 in 10). In each province, the proportion of 15-year-old computer userswho said they “never” used computers at home, or at school, were low (10% or less)for the most part. In New Brunswick and Quebec, however, 15% and 17% of thestudent computer users, respectively, said they did not use computers at school.

Chart C.5.3

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported using computers at home and at school,1 Canada, other countries andprovinces, 2003

Computer used at schoolComputer used at home

CanadaSweden

Australia

Belgium

United States

Germany

Switzerland

Finland

OECD countries (mean)Mexico

Russian Federation

Ontario

British Columbia

Alberta

Nova ScotiaPrince Edward Island

SaskatchewanManitoba

Newfoundland and LabradorQuebec

New Brunswick

Australia

Mexico

Sweden

United States

Russian Federation


Canada

Finland

Switzerland

Belgium

Germany

Manitoba

Saskatchewan


AlbertaPrince Edward Island

Ontario

Nova Scotia

British Columbia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Countries Countries

Provinces

10080 100800 20 40 60 0 20 40 60percentage percentage

1. Frequent: Computer used almost every day or a few times each week.Infrequent: Computer used between once a week and once a month or less than once a month.Never: Computer never used.


Frequent NeverInfrequent


75

C5


Student use of computers to support education

While information technology is more available and more frequently used in schoolsand the home than it used to be, this does not guarantee that computers are used foreducational purposes such as researching a topic on the Internet or writing a report.Across OECD countries, about half (51%) of 15-year-olds reported using computersquite often to help them learn school material (Chart C.5.4 and Table C.5.4), while30% reported never using computers to support their learning.

Although 95% or more of Canadian 15-year-old students had access tocomputers, either at home or at school, over one-quarter (28%) said they “never” usedcomputers for learning their school material. Many did take advantage of computersfor this purpose, however, some every day or a few times a week (29%) and someeither weekly or once a month (24%). Among the provinces, 35% of students in BritishColumbia reported frequent use of computers to support their learning and 21%reported that they never used computers for schoolwork (Chart C.5.4). In Quebec,the results were reversed: 15% reported frequent use of computers to supportschoolwork, while 45% said they never did so.

MexicoRussian Federation

United StatesAustralia

New ZealandOECD countries (mean)

CanadaGermany

Czech RepublicBelgiumSweden

SwitzerlandFinland

Newfoundland and LabradorBritish Columbia

OntarioAlberta

SaskatchewanNova Scotia

Prince Edward IslandManitoba

New BrunswickQuebec

Chart C.5.4

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported using computers to help them learn school material,1 Canada, othercountries and provinces, 2003

Countries

Provinces

1008020 40 60percentage

0

Frequent

Never

Infrequent

1. Frequent: Computer used almost every day or a few times each week to help learn school material.Infrequent: Computer used between once a week and once a month or less than once a month.Never: Computer never used to help learn school material.



76

C5


Differences in male-female access anduse of computers

Across OECD countries, there were no significant differences between males andfemales in terms of availability of computers. In most countries, however, more malesthan females frequently used computers at home and at school (Chart C.5.5 andTable C.5.5). The gender-gap was less pronounced among frequent users of schoolcomputers, however. Across OECD countries, 42% of males and 39% of femalesreported frequent use of computers at school. In Canada, the proportions were 47%and 35%, respectively.

Chart C.5.5

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported frequent use of computers at school,1 by sex, Canada, other countriesand provinces, 2003

1. Computer used almost every day or a few times each week to help learn school material.


Australia

Mexico

Russian Federation

Sweden

United States


Canada

Switzerland

Belgium

Finland

Germany

Manitoba

Saskatchewan



Alberta

Ontario

Nova Scotia

British Columbia

New Brunswick

Quebec


0


Female

Male

Countries

Provinces

77

Chapter D Charts


Chapter D

Postsecondary education 79

D1 Enrolment in postsecondary education 81

D2 Postsecondary completions andgraduation rates 87

D3 University educators 93

D4 Research and development 97

D5 Literacy 103

D6 Educational attainment of thepopulation aged 25 to 64 113

D

78



Chapter D ChartsChart D.1.1Number of registered apprentices, by sex andmajor trade group, Canada, 2004 82

Chart D.1.2Percentage of males among full-time undergraduateenrolment, Canada and provinces, 1994/1995 and2004/2005 85

Chart D.2.1Registered apprenticeship completions,by trade group, Canada, 1994 and 2004 88

Chart D.2.2University graduation rates, by level of degree,Canada, 1976 to 2004 89

Chart D.2.3University graduation rates, by level of degree andprovince of study, Canada and provinces, 2004 91

Chart D.2.4University graduation rates, by level of degreeand sex, Canada, 1994 and 2004 91

Chart D.3.1Age distribution of full-time university educatorscompared with that of the labour force,Canada, 2004/2005 94

Chart D.3.2Female educators as a percentage of full-timeuniversity educators, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005 95

Chart D.4.1Total domestic expenditures on R&D as percentageof GDP, Canada in relation to all OECD countries,2004 (or latest available year) 98

Chart D.4.2Total domestic expenditures on R&D as a percentageof GDP (national or provincial), Canada and provinces,2004 99

Chart D.4.3Percentage change in R&D expenditures contributedby sector, Canada and provinces, 1991 to 2004 100

Chart D.5.1Percentage of population at each prose proficiencylevel, population aged 16 and over, Canada andjurisdictions, 2003 105

Chart D.5.2Proportion of the urban and the rural populationsat or above Level 3 for prose proficiency, populationaged 16 and over, Canada and jurisdictions, 2003 106

Chart D.5.3Distribution of prose proficiency levels, by age group,population aged 16 and over, Canada, 2003 107

Chart D.5.4Employment rate, by document proficiency levels,population aged 16 to 65, Canada andjurisdictions, 2003 109

Chart D.5.5Distribution of prose proficiency levels, byAboriginal (urban) and non-Aboriginal(urban and rural) populations aged 16 and overin Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 2003 110

Chart D.6.1Proportion of the population aged 25 to 64 withcollege or university qualifications, top tenOECD countries, 2004 114

Chart D.6.2Population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity,by level of educational attainment, Canada,1996 and 2001 115

Chart D.6.3Population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity,selected levels of educational attainment,Canada and jurisdictions, 2001 116

Chart D.6.4Population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity,by level of educational attainment and age group,Canada, 2001 117

Chart D.6.5Level of educational attainment in the populationaged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by sex,Canada, 1996 and 2001 118

Postsecondary education

79


Introduction

Postsecondary education helps individuals become better educated citizens andcontributes to one’s social and economic well-being. Postsecondary education has adirect impact on people’s ability to compete in the labour market, on the types of jobsthey obtain, and the remuneration they receive. Progress in the sciences and technologyis linked to a strong research and development (R&D) sector, drawing on the abilitiesof highly trained individuals. Formal education, either at the “typical” age of study, orlater as an adult learner, has an important role to play in developing the human capitalthat is needed by individuals and jurisdictions to compete in the knowledge economy.This chapter consists of the following six sections, each focusing on a different aspectof the postsecondary education system in Canada.

Indicator D1 provides information on student enrolment in registeredapprenticeship, college, and university programs, as well as reporting on differencesby sex.

Postsecondary completions for registered apprenticeship and college programs,and university degrees are the topic of Indicator D2. Also covered are completionsand graduation rates by sex, and, at the university level, by field of study.

Indicator D3 looks at university educators. In addition to showing how manyeducators there are in Canada and the jurisdictions, it also examines the male-femaledistribution and the age breakdown of educators as a group compared with the overallpopulation.

Indicator D4 presents information on the amount of R&D conducted inuniversities in Canada and its financing, along with selected international comparisons.

Indicator D5 examines patterns in the distribution of literacy skills among theCanadian population aged 16 and over.

Indicator D6 provides an international comparison of the educational attainmentof Canadians. It also provides a portrait of the educational profile of the populationwith Aboriginal identity.

The data presented in this chapter pertain to the registered apprenticeship,college, and university levels. Previous editions of PCEIP rounded out thepostsecondary picture by including data on the trade-vocational sector. At the time ofwriting this report, no data beyond those presented in the 2003 PCEIP Report1 wereavailable for this level; hence they are not presented here.

81

D1


Enrolment in postsecondaryeducation

Context

With rising secondary school graduation rates, many industrialized countries havecome to view participation in postsecondary education as an important prerequisitefor working and further learning. Postsecondary education also plays a role in thesocial welfare of a nation and affects numerous aspects of one’s life. An educated andhighly skilled workforce is widely viewed as a crucial element for the continuedeconomic and social growth and development of Canada and the regions of thecountry.

In Canada, postsecondary programs are offered through colleges, institutes,university colleges, universities, and private institutions. Trends in enrolment provideinformation on the supply of skills and knowledge that future entrants to the labourforce are likely to provide, as well as helping postsecondary institutions and policymakers assess the demand on the system. Data on the balance between male andfemale participation and how that has shifted over time help determine what steps, ifany, may be needed to encourage higher levels of participation among both males andfemales.

Findings

Registered apprenticeship

The apprenticeship training system has played a major role over the past century inenabling business and industry in Canada to remain competitive. As skills shortagesare anticipated in some trades2 and regions of the country, it is important to betterunderstand enrolment and completion trends in apprenticeship programs in order tosupport actions aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of skilled workers in the trades(for completion trends, see Indicator D2). A series of key measures on apprenticeshipenrolment is presented here.

In 2004, there were 267,800 registered apprentices in Canada, 64% more thanin 1994 (Table D.1.1). All major trade groups contributed to this increase. In 2004,building construction; metal fabricating; electrical, electronics and related; and motorvehicle and heavy equipment trades were the largest fields, each accounting for over45,000 registered apprentices. Together, these trade groups accounted for approximatelythree-quarters (76%) of the increase in all registered apprentices over the past decade.Although the “other trades” group was the smallest apprenticeship field, it posted the


82

D1


highest rate of growth over the decade, registering almost four times as manyapprentices in 2004 as in 1994. In 2004, there were about 8,000 apprentices in thistrade group. Part of this growth is related to the fact that this field has expanded overthe years to include a variety of newly established registered apprenticeship programs;for example, set dresser, grip, and assistant cameraperson in the motion picture andtheatre sector (Table D.1.2).

Over the decade, the total number of registered apprentices increased in allprovinces except New Brunswick, where the number fell 13% to about 4,400apprentices (Table D.1.1). Over half of all apprentices in 2004 were registered inOntario (35%) and Quebec (23%), with another 20% in Alberta, and 10% in BritishColumbia. The proportion of registered apprentices in Ontario and Quebec is in linewith their share of the population.3 In contrast, Alberta enrolled 20% of all registeredapprentices but accounted for only 10% of the population. Furthermore, Alberta’sshare of all registered apprentices in Canada increased by 3 percentage points, from17% in 1994. The higher concentration of apprentices in Alberta relative to itspopulation is coincident with good economic conditions and a booming mining, oiland gas extraction industry in that province.4 British Columbia accounted for 13% ofthe population of Canada in 2004, but for only 10% of all registered apprentices(Table D.1.1).

As was the case in Alberta, the number of registered apprentices inNewfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba grew at a faster rate than the Canadaaverage over the decade, and as a result they enrolled a higher share of all registeredapprentices in 2004 than in 1994.

Between 1994 and 2004, the proportion of female registered apprentices in alltrades increased from 6% to 9%. The only fields in which women have a substantialrepresentation are the food and service trades and the other trades field. In 2004,women accounted for 62% and 51%, respectively, of all apprentices in these fields(Chart D.1.1 and Table D.1.2).

Chart D.1.1

Number of registered apprentices, by sex and major trade group, Canada, 2004

Buildingconstruction

trades

Source: Table D.1.2.

Metalfabricating

trades

Motor-vehicle

and heavyequipment

Electrical,electronics

andrelated

Foodand

servicetrades

Industrial andrelated

mechanicaltrades

Othertrades

number number70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

20,000

30,000

10,000

0

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

20,000

30,000

10,000

0Male

Female


83

D1


In 2004, half of the 267,800 registered apprentices in Canada were in theirtwenties, one-quarter were between the ages of 30 and 39, and another 17% were 40or older (Table D.1.3). Although apprentices under age 20 represented only 7% of allregistered apprentices in 2004, the number of registered apprentices in this age groupwas four times higher than in 1994. The number of registered apprentices aged 40 orolder also posted substantial rates of growth and their representation among allregistered apprentices grew from 11% in 1994 to 17% in 2004.

College enrolment

This section provides information on the number of full-time students enrolled inpublic colleges and institutes, as well as their gender profile in the 2003/2004 and2004/2005 academic years.5 The source of enrolment information for these two yearsis a provisional survey of the ministries and departments of education in Canada,conducted by Statistics Canada, in which jurisdictions report summary informationon enrolment in, and graduates of, public colleges and institutes.6 For jurisdictionswhere these data are not available in existing databases, data are either obtained directlyfrom the colleges or are generated from data originally submitted to Statistics Canadafor the Postsecondary Student Information System (PSIS). A longer time series ofdata on enrolment in public colleges and institutes is dependent on the possibility ofproducing historical revisions to the college data that have been traditionally collectedby Statistics Canada from individual student records using PSIS and its precursors(see 2007 PCEIP Handbook for more information about these data sources).

In the 2004/2005 academic year, the total number of full-time students enrolledin public colleges and institutes in all jurisdictions was about 514,000, fairly stablefrom the previous academic year (Table D.1.4). Students registered in any programthat is eligible for academic credit in a diploma or certificate program or in a universitytransfer program are included in the data. More specifically, these programs includecareer-technical, university transfer, university-college, pre-employment and pre-apprenticeship vocational programs, as well as the in-class portion of apprenticeshipprograms.

Women comprise less than half of all full-time students in public colleges andinstitutes in five jurisdictions. This differs from the situation in universities in alljurisdictions where women account for the majority of students, particularly at theundergraduate level. In 2004/2005, the percentage of women among all full-timestudents in public colleges and institutes ranged from 39% to 45% in Newfoundlandand Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Alberta, butwas 50% or more in all other jurisdictions (Table D.1.4). To some extent, the lowerrepresentation of women among full-time students in public colleges and institutesmay be related to their traditionally lower representation in skilled trades. Examiningthe percentage of women by type of program would help to develop a betterunderstanding of the makeup of the full-time student body in public colleges andinstitutes. The lower percentage of women in public colleges and institutes may alsobe related to the increasing enrolment of women in university.

University enrolment

Between 1994/1995 and 2004/2005, undergraduate enrolment at Canadian universitiesincreased 19%, rising from 658,300 students to 785,700, with most of this growthoccurring since the latter part of the 1990s. Full-time students are the drivers behindthis growth as their numbers have grown 28% since 1999 to a record 631,900 studentsin 2004/2005. In contrast, part-time enrolment at the undergraduate level decreased11% to 155,300 students between 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, and since then hasremained at this lower level (Table D.1.5).


84

D1


Over the decade, all provinces registered an increase in the number of full-time undergraduate students. Since 1999/2000, Ontario and Manitoba have postedgrowth rates in excess of 40% (representing an additional 86,700 students in Ontarioand an additional 7,400 in Manitoba). In Ontario, part of this enrolment growth isexplained by the double cohort,7 which led to large increases in enrolment in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 (although other provinces also attracted students from Ontario).Comparatively speaking, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and NewBrunswick have posted the lowest rates of growth since 1999/2000: 6%, 9%, and11%, respectively (Table D.1.5).

Unlike the picture at the Canada level, part-time undergraduate enrolmentin Alberta increased 50% between 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, but these gains werewiped out by subsequent declines. Part-time enrolment in British Columbia increasedalong with full-time enrolment over the decade, but at a slower rate. Since 1999/2000, the number of part-time undergraduates has also risen in Prince Edward Islandand Saskatchewan (Table D.1.5).

In 2004/2005, there were 148,700 graduate students in Canada. Thisrepresents an increase of 32% over the decade, a faster rate of growth than at the totalundergraduate level. Most of this increase has occurred since the latter part of the1990s. As is the case at the undergraduate level, the majority of graduate students(71%) are studying on a full-time basis. However, unlike the decrease shown at theundergraduate level, the number of graduate students pursuing their studies on apart-time basis has increased 13% since 1994/1995 (Table D.1.5).

Total graduate enrolment experienced significant growth over the decade inall provinces except Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where it was more or less stable.Unlike the decline in part-time students at the undergraduate level, part-timers atthe graduate level increased 13% between 1994 and 2004. Over this period,Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and British Columbia had thehighest rates of growth in part-time graduate enrolment. In these four provinces, thenumber of part-time graduate students grew throughout the decade, even during themid-1990s when enrolment at this level had shown a mild decline at the Canadalevel (Table D.1.5).

Women have constituted the majority in full-time undergraduate studies forsome time, and now their enrolment at the total graduate level is equal to that ofmen. Since 1994/1995, men’s share of full-time undergraduate enrolment has decreasedfrom 46% to 42% (Chart D.1.2 and Table D.1.6). Men’s share of graduate enrolmentdropped from 56% to 51% over the same period. Decreases in the percentage of malestudents at the full-time undergraduate and total graduate levels are found in allprovinces. (For information on the distribution of male and female graduates by leveland field of study, see Chart D.2.4, Tables D.2.6, D.2.7, and D.2.8, and related text.)


85

D1


Chart D.1.2

Percentage of males among full-time undergraduate enrolment, Canada and provinces, 1994/1995 and 2004/2005


1994/1995

2004/2005


70

60

0

10

30

40

50

20

N.S.B.C.Alta. P.E.I.Sask.Ont. Can. Man. N.L.Que. N.B.

70

60

0

10

30

40

50

20


86

D1


Endnotes

1. See Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2003. Education indicatorsin Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa, available at www.statcan.ca or www.cmec.ca. The program of electronic updates toPCEIP will post updated tables for the trade-vocational level once new data become available; seewww.statcan.ca or www.cmec.ca.

2. Prasil, Sandrine. 2005. “Registered Apprentices: The Class of 1992, a Decade Later.” Culture,Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics — Research Papers, Statistics Canada Cataloguenumber 81-595-MIE-Number 035.

3. The source of population data used in this section is Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table 051-0001.Accessed at www.statcan.ca on June 5, 2007.

4. Prasil, Sandrine. 2005. “Registered Apprentices: The Class of 1992, a Decade Later.” Culture,Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics — Research Papers, Statistics Canada Cataloguenumber 81-595-MIE-Number 035.

5. Part-time enrolment data is not reported on in this publication because discrepancies in the datareporting were still being resolved between Statistics Canada and the jurisdictions.

6. In this data collection, Statistics Canada asked the ministries and departments of education toreport the aggregate numbers of students enrolled, broken out by available variables. This is incontrast to other enrolment and graduates surveys conducted by Statistics Canada in which theyobtained this data based on individual student records that are maintained by public colleges andinstitutions.

7. Following a major change in policy, 2002/2003 was the last year for grade 13 in Ontario. Oneimmediate consequence of this change was the “double cohort” of students entering thepostsecondary system in 2003/2004. The double cohort comprised the last graduating class fromthe old system with the extra year and the first graduating class from the new system.

87

D2


Postsecondary completionsand graduation rates

Context

This indicator presents trends in completions for registered apprenticeship programs,college diploma and certificate programs, and university degrees, by sex. Graduationrates are also provided at the university level by sex and field of study.

Graduation from postsecondary education expands ones social, in addition toeconomic, potential. Trends in postsecondary completions and graduation rates offerinsights into the response of Canadian education systems to changes in the demandfor skills in the labour market. This indicator covers a spectrum of postsecondaryprograms, from theoretical and research-based graduate programs at the universitylevel to practical, job-related apprenticeship training.

The balance between male and female graduates is one measure of equity, andinformation is presented here on the relative percentages of male and female graduatesfrom registered apprenticeship, college, and university programs.

Previous editions of PCEIP rounded out the postsecondary picture by includingdata on the trade-vocational sector. At the time of writing this report, no data beyondthose presented in the 2003 PCEIP Report were available for this level; hence, theyare not presented here.

Findings

Registered apprenticeship training

The apprenticeship branches of provincial and territorial governments reported 19,700individuals completing registered apprenticeship programs in 2004, up 17% from1994 (Table D.2.1). The number of completers increased in all major trade groups,with the “other trades” group, metal fabricating, and industrial and related mechanicaltrades showing the highest growth rates over the decade (42%, 34%, and 22%,respectively) (Table D.2.2). The “other trades” group is small in terms of the absolutenumber of completers (355 in 2004) but it showed one of the fastest growth ratesover the decade. In part, this is owing to its expansion over the years to include avariety of the newly established registered apprenticeship programs. Examples of someof the trades included in this category are child and youth worker and early childhoodeducator, as well as set dresser and assistant cameraperson.


88

D2


The two largest trade groups in 2004 were the metal fabricating trades andmotor vehicle and heavy equipment trades, each accounting for 24% and 21% of thatyear’s completers, respectively (Chart D 2.1 and Table D.2.2).The metal fabricatingtrades contributed 42% of the total increase in apprenticeship completers between1994 and 2004, followed by electrical, electronics, and related, which accounted for18% of the overall increase in completers.

Between 1994 and 2004, the number of individuals completing registeredapprenticeship programs increased in all jurisdictions, with the exception ofNewfoundland and Labrador (down 19% or 45 completers), New Brunswick (down13% or 80 completers), and British Columbia (down 34% or 980 completers)(Table D.2.1).

The food and services and “other trades” groups were the only trades where themajority of completers were women, 76% and 54% of completers respectively in 2004.All other trades are still overwhelmingly male dominated; furthermore, the percentageof women completers in these trades was fairly similar in 2004 to what it was a decadeearlier. Overall, the proportion of women among registered apprenticeship graduatesrose from 9% to 11% between 1994 and 2004 (Table D.2.2).

College graduations

This section provides information on the number of students who graduated frompublic colleges and institutes in 2003/2004 and 2004/2005, by the type of credentialgranted and sex. The source of these data is a provisional survey of the ministries anddepartments of education in Canada, conducted by Statistics Canada, in whichjurisdictions report summary information on graduates of public colleges andinstitutes.1 For the jurisdictions where these data are not available in existing databases,data are either obtained directly from the colleges or are generated from data originallysubmitted to Statistics Canada for the Postsecondary Student Information System

Chart D.2.1

Registered apprenticeship completions, by trade group, Canada, 1994 and 2004

Notes: Trades ranked according to number of completions in 2004.


number number6,000 6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0Metal

fabricatingtrades

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0Motorvehicle

and heavyequipment

Electrical,electronics

andrelated

Buildingconstruction

trades

Food andservicetrades

Industrialand

relatedmechanical

trades

Othertrades

1994

2004


89

D2


(PSIS). A longer time series of data on graduates from public colleges and institutesis dependent on the possibility of producing historical revisions to the college datathat have been traditionally collected by Statistics Canada from individual studentrecords using PSIS and its precursors (see 2007 PCEIP Handbook for moreinformation about these data sources).

In 2004/2005, there were 173,000 graduates from public colleges and institutesin Canada, about 2% more than the previous year (Table D.2.5). Graduates are thosewho graduated or completed the requirements for certificates, diplomas or degrees inthe reference year.2

In 2004/2005, degree programs in public colleges and institutes were mainlyoffered in Alberta and British Columbia, where graduates from these programscomprised 5% and 12% of all graduates, respectively (Table D.2.5). These degrees—most being bachelor’s degrees in applied programs—are offered by colleges anduniversity colleges.

In 2004/2005, women accounted for at least half of all graduates from publiccolleges and institutes in all jurisdictions, with the exception of Prince Edward Island(41% of the graduate body) and New Brunswick (43%).

University degrees

In 1976, the graduation rate from bachelor’s and first professional degree programsfor Canada as a whole was 18%. Graduation rates rose steeply in the 1980s, reaching28% by 1991. The rate climbed to a peak of 33% in 1996, after which it slipped toabout 31% for the rest of the decade and into the early part of the 2000s. In 2004, thegraduation rate from bachelor’s and first professional degree programs had regainedthe previous high of 33% (Chart D.2.2 and Table D.2.3).

Chart D.2.2

University graduation rates, by level of degree, Canada, 1976 to 2004

Note: Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the population at the typical age of graduation (age 22 for bachelor’s andfirst professional degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 for earned doctorates). Rates include foreign students.



1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Bachelor’s and firstprofessional degrees

Earned doctorate degrees

Master’s degrees


90

D2


Graduation rates are calculated by dividing the total number of graduates bythe population at the “typical” age of graduation, using the population age 22 forbachelor’s and first professional degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 fordoctorates. (This measure should not be confused with a graduation rate that showsgraduates as a proportion of enrolment.) The graduation rate of 33% in 2004 meansthat the number of bachelor’s and first professional graduates that year represented33% of the population aged 22. Obviously, not all students graduate at the “typical”age and only a portion of the population aged 22 is attending university, but thismeasure provides an indication of involvement in education. (For more information,see 2007 PCEIP Handbook.)

Based on the province of study, Nova Scotia posted the highest bachelor’sgraduation rate in 2004, at 54%, followed by New Brunswick (39%) and Ontario(38%). The lowest rates were in British Columbia (24%), Alberta (29%), Saskatchewan(30%), and Prince Edward Island (31%) (Chart D.2.3 and Table D.2.4). Graduationrates based on province of study will tend to be higher for provinces with a relativelylarge number of universities and out-of-province students.3

Note that jurisdictional differences related to average age, institutional transferarrangements, and the types of institution can have a material effect on graduationrates, and care should be exercised in making comparisons. Socio-economiccircumstances may also affect graduation rates. In a strong economy, as in Alberta atthe moment, high school graduates may choose to defer enrolment in a postsecondaryinstitution in order to take advantage of employment opportunities, while young peoplefrom out of the jurisdiction may move there for work, raising the size of the populationused to calculate the graduation rate. Finally, jurisdictions with increasing part-timeenrolments will have a greater number of students who graduate at a later age thanthe “typical age” used in calculating the graduation rate here.

From 1976 to 1989, the overall graduation rate at the master’s level held steadyat 3%. The rate rose rapidly over the next few years and was 5% from 1992 to 1997.Since then it has increased to 7% in 2004 (Chart D.2.2 and Table D.2.4).

In 2004, master’s graduation rates in the provinces ranged from 2% in PrinceEdward Island to 14% in Nova Scotia. The rates were higher in 2004 than in 1991 inall provinces, with the exception of Manitoba, where the rate was the same in 2004 asit was in 1991 (3%). Over this period, rates more than doubled in Newfoundland andLabrador (from 2% to 7%), Nova Scotia (from 6% to 14%), and Alberta (from 3%to 6%).

The overall graduation rate for doctoral students stayed almost the same, at0.4% to 0.5%, from 1976 to 1990, then doubled to 1% by 2004, when about 4,200doctorates were awarded. Between 1991 and 2004, the graduation rate for doctoratesincreased in all provinces offering this degree, with the rate at least doubling inNewfoundland and Labrador (rising from 0.3% to 0.6%), New Brunswick (risingfrom 0.1% to 0.4%), and Quebec (rising from 0.6% to 1.2%). Prior to 1999, PrinceEdward Island did not offer earned doctorates (Table D.2.4).

As noted in Indicator D1, between 1994 and 2004, women were the driversbehind enrolment growth in Canadian universities (see Table D.1.5). This trend isreflected in the graduation statistics. In 2004, there were about 31,000 more graduatesfrom Canadian universities than in 1994, with women accounting for three-quartersof this increase. In 2004, women accounted for 60% of graduates compared with 57%10 years earlier. In all provinces, the majority of 2004 graduates were women; inPrince Edward Island, 67% were women (Table D.2.8).


91

D2


Chart D.2.3

University graduation rates, by level of degree and province of study, Canada and provinces, 2004

Notes: Provinces are ranked according to bachelor’s and first professional degrees graduation rates.Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the population at the typical age of graduation (age 22 for bachelor’s andfirst professional degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 for earned doctorates). Rates presented in this table include foreign students. Thedata for British Columbia do not include bachelor’s degrees granted by university colleges.



Chart D.2.4

University graduation rates, by level of degree and sex, Canada, 1994 and 2004

Note: Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the population at the typical age of graduation (age 22 for bachelor’s andfirst professional degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 for earned doctorates). Rates presented in this table include foreign students.



N.S. N.B. Ont. Can. N.L. Man. Que. P.E.I. Sask. Alta. B.C.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

45

55

50

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

45

55

50


Earned doctorate degrees

Master’s degrees

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

45

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

45

1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004

Male

Female


Master’s degrees Earned doctorate degrees


92

D2


Field of study

By 2004, business, management, and public administration had surpassed social andbehavioural sciences and law as the field of study with the most graduates in Canada.It accounted for 21% of all university graduates that year. Social and behaviouralsciences and law was the second-largest field of study (accounting for 20% of allgraduates), followed by education (accounting for 12%) (Table D.2.8). The physical,natural and applied sciences accounted for 23% of graduates in 2004.4 Social andbehavioural sciences and law, and business, management and public administrationwere the leading fields of study in almost every province.

Although the total number of men graduating from university programsincreased between 1994 and 2004, the number of male graduates decreased in severalfields of study (Tables D.2.7 and D.2.8). In contrast, the number of women increasedin every field of study, except for the humanities and education, where their numbersin 2004 were similar to those in 1994. In the physical, natural, and applied sciences,generally a male-dominated area, women posted a higher growth rate than men (49%as compared with 25%), and this was the case in each of the specific disciplines makingup this field of study with the exception of mathematics, computer and informationsciences. In 2004 women accounted for only 30% of graduates in mathematics,computer and information sciences (down from 33% a decade earlier). In 2004, womenhad the lowest representation among graduates in architecture, engineering, and relatedtechnologies, where they accounted for 25% of the graduating class that year.

Endnotes

1. In this data collection, Statistics Canada asks the ministries and departments of education toreport the aggregate numbers of students enrolled, broken out by available variables. This is incontrast to other enrolment and graduates surveys conducted by Statistics Canada in which theyobtain this data based on individual student records that are maintained by public colleges andinstitutions.

2. Excluded are completers of continuing education programs (unless they lead to a certificate, diplomaor degree), part-time trade courses, basic training and skill development, university transferprograms, and provincial apprenticeship programs.

3. Typically, graduation rates are also reported by province of residence. However, many universitiesdid not report that information for their graduates. As a result, comparisons across jurisdictionsfor graduation rates by province of residence are not available.

4. This broad agglomeration of fields of study consists of the physical and life sciences andtechnologies; mathematics, computer and information sciences; architecture, engineering, andrelated technologies; and agriculture, natural resources, and conservation.

93

D3



Context

This indicator presents information on the number of university educators, providingbreakdowns by age and sex.

The issue of ageing staff is a central concern facing the management ofuniversities. The group of educators who are now preparing for retirement was hiredin the 1970s, at a time of significant growth in the postsecondary system. As theyouth population declined in the 1980s, slowing enrolment growth meant fewereducators were hired during this period. The large numbers of faculty hired duringthe 1970s enrolment boom are now retiring or are preparing to do so in the next 5 to10 years. This has raised the issue of a potential risk of a faculty shortage in Canadianuniversities. However, other factors may also intervene to affect the need to hire faculty.Indicator A1 shows that the population of 15- to 19-year-olds is expected to declineover the next 5 years, while the population of 20- to 24-year-olds will begin to declinein 2016. While the bulk of the university-going population has traditionally comefrom these two age groups, these population decreases may not translate into declinesin the number of university students, as participation rates also have a bearing onenrolment levels. The growing importance of a university education in a knowledge-based economy and increased accessibility to education may translate into a higherdemand for a university education, among both the typical university-age populationand other, non-traditional populations. Factors such as funding, the need to addressquality issues (e.g., student-faculty interaction, class size), and the increasing demandfor university-based research may also have a bearing on faculty hiring.1

Male educators have traditionally been in the majority in universities. Thisindicator examines the balance between males and females, both in terms of age groupsand academic rank.

Findings

Number of university educators

The 18% increase in total university enrolment between 1994/1995 and 2004/2005(Table D.1.5) contrasts with the 6% rise in the overall number of full-time universityeducators over the same period (Table D.3.1). The number of full and associateprofessors employed in Canadian universities actually fell 6% and 5%, respectively,over the decade. The rise in the overall number of full-time university educators isthe result of a 41% jump in the “other ranks,” which captures entry-level assistantprofessors, lecturers and instructors. By 2004/2005, these educators accounted for32% of the total full-time teaching faculty, up from 24% in 1994/1995.


94

D3


Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba were the only provinces that saw adecrease in the total number of full-time university educators. All other provincesexperienced an increase, with Alberta showing the fastest rate of growth, a 21% increasein the number of full-time educators over the decade (from 3,100 to 3,700educators). In Quebec, the number of educators was about the same in 2004/2005 asin 1994/1995 (Table D3.1).

Age of university educators

Since 1999, the age profile of university educators in Canada has changed. In2004/2005, 19% of educators were 30 to 39 years of age, slightly higher than in1999/2000 (16%). While the proportion of faculty who were 50 to 59 years of agedropped from 39% in 1999/2000 to 33% in 2004/2005, the proportion aged 60 andover increased from 12% to 16% over this same period. The proportion of universityfaculty who were 40 to 49 was about the same in 2003/2004 as in 1999/2000.2 InCanada, the median age of full-time university educators in 2004/2005 was 49.

Full-time university educators are older than the overall labour force(Chart D.3.1).

Chart D.3.1

Age distribution of full-time university educators compared with that of the labour force, Canada, 2004/2005

Note: Age distributions of educators and labour force are calculated as a percentage of the educator and labour force populations aged 30 and over.



30 to 39

50

0

10

20

50

0

10

20

40 40

30 30

40 to 49 50 to 59 60 and over

University

Labour force

Full-time university

25

29

20

5

19 32 33 16

In all provinces, faculty aged 50 or more accounted for about one-third ormore of all faculty. Manitoba had a higher percentage of faculty aged 60 and overthan any other province (Table D.3.2).

Gender distribution

Women accounted for 32% of all full-time university educators by 2004/2005, upfrom 23% a decade earlier (Chart D.3.2 and Table D.3.1).


95

D3



50

0

10

30

40

50

0

10

30

40

20 20

1994/1995

2004/2005

There were fewer women at higher ranks, with women accounting for 19% offull professors, 35% of associate professors, and 44% of other ranks. Nevertheless, thepercentage of women among full professors almost doubled in the 10-year period. In2004/2005, the percentage of women among full professors ranged from 15% inNewfoundland and Labrador to 24% in Prince Edward Island. In all provinces, theproportion of female faculty increased, with the largest increases occurring in PrinceEdward Island (24 percentage points) and Saskatchewan (12 percentage points).

Salary of full-time university educators

Between 1994/1995 and 2004/2005, average salaries of university faculty increased4% to about $87,000 (measured in constant 2001 dollars) (Table D.3.4). Differencesacross provinces reflect, in part, variation in the distribution of faculty across fields ofstudy, as well as in the proportion of teaching staff with administrative duties. Averagesalaries are higher for provinces that have higher proportions of faculty in programslike medicine and dentistry and that rely to a greater extent on teaching faculty withadministrative duties. Differences may also reflect the higher salaries that someuniversities may have to pay in order to attract and or retain candidates from theprivate sector.

The gender gap in earnings narrowed slightly as the average salary of femaleeducators rose from 84% of that of male educators in 1994/1995 to 87% in2004/2005. The gender gap within academic ranks showed little change over thedecade: women in full professorships and in other ranks earned approximately 95% ofwhat their male counterparts earned, and women in associate professorships earned97% of what men earned. Much of the overall gender gap therefore stems from thelower representation of women in the higher ranks. The gender gap within ranks ismainly related to the higher representation of men in higher-paying faculties in thesciences, such as medicine, dentistry, computer sciences, and in business.

N.S. B.C. Alta.P.E.I. Sask.Ont. Can. Man.N.L. Que.N.B.

Chart D.3.2

Female educators as a percentage of full-time university educators, Canada and provinces, 1994/1995 and 2004/2005

Note: Provinces ranked by percentage in 2004/2005.



96

D3


In 2004/2005, the female-to-male earnings ratio for full professors ranged from87% in Saskatchewan to 103% in Prince Edward Island, a situation in which womenin this rank earn slightly more than men. For associate professors, this ratio was between94% and 98% in all provinces, except Saskatchewan, where there was no gender gapat this level.

Endnotes

1. Robert J. Giroux. “Looking down the road by the numbers: Challenges to universities in the next10 years.” Policy Options, September 2003, 10-14.

2. The source for the 1999 data is the 2003 PCEIP Report: Statistics Canada and Council of Ministersof Education, Canada. 2003. Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-CanadianEducation Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.

97

D4



Context

This indicator presents contextual, financial, and output information for universityresearch and development (R&D).

R&D, along with teaching and community service, is a traditional function ofuniversities. Systematic, scientifically based investigation is conducted by universityfaculty and is an integral part of student training. This work can then be built on todevelop market-ready products and processes. Universities play an important role inthe R&D system in Canada. At the pan-Canadian level, the university sector is thesecond-largest contributor of R&D after business. In most provinces, universitiesrepresent the primary source of such efforts.

Specific issues facing each province in relation to university R&D vary, butcommon threads include finding mechanisms to fund both the direct and indirectcosts of research; supporting the supply and retention of highly qualified researchers;transferring new ideas and knowledge from the university sector into the public andcommercial domains; and supporting the research capacity of smaller universities.

Findings

R&D as a sector, and within universities

In 2004, Canada conducted $24.2 billion worth of R&D (in real 2001 dollars). Thisis close to double the amount of R&D (+93%) conducted in 1991. After rising in themid- to late 1990s, the amount of R&D conducted in Canada was stable between2002 and 2003, but posted a 4% increase the following year (Table D.4.4).

R&D intensity is one measure that is commonly used to compare the level ofeffort different jurisdictions put toward R&D, and it is measured as the ratio of R&Dexpenditures to gross domestic product (GDP). In 2004, Canada spent 2.0% of GDPon R&D. Despite the increasing amount of R&D conducted in Canada, the ratio ofR&D to GDP for Canada has remained stable since 2000, but was 0.4 percentagepoints higher than in 1991 (Table D.4.2).

In comparison, OECD countries, on average, spent 2.3% of their GDP onR&D in 2004. That year, Canada placed 12th among all OECD countries in R&Dintensity, slipping slightly from 11th place in 2002 (as reported in 2005 PCEIP Report)(Chart D.4.1 and Table D.4.1).


98

D4


Among the jurisdictions, the ratio of R&D expenditures to GDP was highestin Quebec (2.7%) and Ontario (2.3%) (Chart D.4.2 and Table D.4.2). Since 2000,this ratio has remained more or less stable in all jurisdictions.

Universities account for a large share of Canada’s R&D activity. In 2004, theyaccounted for slightly more than one-third of all R&D in Canada, second to thebusiness sector which accounted for more than half of all R&D. In comparison, thefederal and provincial governments together accounted for about 9% (Table D.4.3).

In all but four provinces, the university sector was the single largest contributorto R&D in 2004, accounting for between 33% and 68% of total R&D activity. InQuebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, business was the single largest R&D-performing sector; however, in each of these provinces, universities accounted for

Mexico (2003)Slovak Republic

PolandGreece (2003)Turkey (2003)

Portugal

Italy (2001)

0 2.0 3.0 5.0

Hungary3

Spain

New Zealand (2003)

Czech Republic

Australia (2002)Norway

European Union (2003)United Kingdom (2003)

Canada

Austria

Belgium

Netherlands

1.0

0 2.0 3.0 5.01.0

Korea2

Total OECDDenmarkGermany

Iceland (2003)Switzerland

United States1

Sweden (2003)4

Finland

France

Japan

percent of GDP

percent of GDP

4.0

4.0

Ireland

Chart D.4.1

Total domestic expenditures on R&D as percentage of GDP, Canada in relation to all OECD countries,2004 (or latest available year)

1. Excludes most or all capital expenditures.2. Excludes R&D in the social sciences and humanities.3. Defence excluded (all or mostly).4. Underestimated.



99

D4


Within a province’s overall R&D activities, the role played by universitiesdepends on many factors. Chief among these are the province’s involvement in R&Din general; the importance of other R&D sectors such as industry (which in turn isoften tied to the structure of the economy); the distribution of R&D among basicresearch, applied research, and development; and levels of academic research funding.

R&D contributed by universities

In 1991, universities across Canada contributed $3.8 billion (in real 2001 dollars)worth of R&D. By 2004, R&D in the university sector more than doubled to$8.4 billion. The annual rate of growth in university R&D slowed somewhat in 2003and 2004 to 6% and 8%, respectively, compared with an average rate of growth in thefirst two years of the millennium of 13%. In comparison, R&D carried out in thebusiness sector, the largest R&D performing sector in Canada, grew by 115% overthe decade and into the early 2000s, then fell slightly in 2003 (-2%) from the previousyear, after which this loss was recouped in 2004 (+2%) (Table D.4.4).

about one-third of R&D. In Alberta, universities and business each contribute about40% of R&D. The federal government is the largest R&D performer in the territories(Table D.4.3).

In all provinces, universities play a comparatively larger role in total R&D activitythan do their counterparts in other G-7 countries (except Italy) and leading OECDcountries. Among the G-7, other than Canada and Italy, universities accounted forbetween 13% ( Japan) and 21% (United Kingdom) of total R&D, while among thetop three OECD R&D-performing countries, they accounted for between 20% and22%. In the United States, Canada’s closest economic competitor, universitiesaccounted for 14% of R&D (Table D.4.3).

percentage of GDP percentage of GDP3.0

2.5

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

3.0

2.5

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0 2.0

N.S. B.C. Alta. P.E.I.Sask.Ont. Can. Man. N.L.Que. N.B.

Chart D.4.2

Total domestic expenditures on R&D as a percentage of GDP (national or provincial), Canada and provinces, 2004



100

D4


percent change in R&D expenditures percent change in R&D expenditures

400

300

0

50

100

250

Business enterprise

University

Federal government

200

150

-50

All provinces registered increases in the amount of R&D contributed byuniversities over the 1990s and into the 2000s. However, in 2004, most provincesremained rather stable in the amount of R&D provided by their universities or posteda slight decline compared with the previous year. The exception was Ontario whereuniversity R&D increased 18% in 2004 from the previous year to total $3.6 billion (inreal 2001 dollars) (Chart D.4.3 and Table D.4.4).

Sources of funds for university R&D

Universities are the largest financial supporters of their own research, accounting for46% of funding from all sources in 2004. Funds from the universities mainly coverthe indirect costs of R&D and faculty salaries that are not covered by external funding.The second and third largest funding sources are the federal government, throughsponsorship of university R&D (accounting for 26% of university R&D funding)and provincial governments (12%). In 2004, business accounted for just 8% ofuniversity R&D funds (Table D.4.5).

The two revenue streams supporting university financing of their own researchactivities include general university funds—essentially block grants that can be usedto support R&D activity—and universities’ own revenue sources—revenue generatedby the university from the sale of goods and services other than direct sponsorship ofR&D (see 2007 PCEIP Handbook for further explanation of these categories offunding, as well as the glossary entry for sources of funds for university R&D).

350

N.S.B.C. Alta.P.E.I. Sask.Ont. Can. Man. N.L.Qc N.B.

Chart D.4.3

Percentage change in R&D expenditures contributed by sector, Canada and provinces, 1991 to 2004

-100

450

400

300

0

50

100

250

200

150

-50

350

-100

450

Note: Que. and Ont. figures exclude federal government expenditures allocated in the National Capital Region. Expenditures contributed by the provincialgovernments and private non-profit sector are not shown here because of the relatively smaller role that they play in conducting R&D in Can.Provinces are ranked by percentage change in university expenditure.



101

D4


The use of universities’ own revenue sources for funding their R&D increasedmore than threefold between 1991 and 2004, from half a billion dollars in 1991 to$1.7 billion in 2004 in real 2001 dollars. As a result, universities’ own revenue sourcesaccounted for 14% of total university R&D funding in 1991, then increased to 22%in 2000, and has since remained, more or less, at this level. Between 1991 and 2004,general university funds as a source of funding of R&D grew by less than the averagefor all sources of funds (41% for general university funds as compared with 119% forall funding sources) and thereby went from accounting for 39% of total funding in1991 to 25% in 2004 (Table D.4.5).

The federal government, through sponsorship of R&D, contributed $2.2 billionof funding in 2004 (in real 2001 dollars). Federal sponsorship more than doubled(+129%) between 1991 and 2004. However, it had decreased through the mid-1990swith reinvestment beginning in 1997 through the granting councils and theintroduction of new initiatives such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Since2000, the federal government’s share of university R&D funding has increased slightlyfrom 22% to 26% (Table D.4.5).

Funding from the business sector for university R&D activities increased byabout two and a half times between 1991 and 2004. Since 2000, the absolute amountof university R&D dollars funded by business has increased slightly, but their share offunding has decreased slightly from 10% to 8%.

Funding trends differ by province (Table D.4.5). Universities in all provincesare the single largest sources of funds for their own research, ranging from 63% ofuniversity R&D funding in Prince Edward Island to 39% in Alberta in 2004.Universities in the Atlantic provinces relied proportionately more on their own fundingthan did universities in the rest of Canada. In Alberta, universities fund a smallershare of their own R&D than do universities in other provinces; however, this iscountered by a larger contribution, proportionally speaking, from the provincialgovernment. This is likely tied to the substantial revenues of the provincial government,and in turn related to the economic situation in Alberta.

103

D5


Literacy

Context

This indicator examines patterns in the distribution of literacy skills among theCanadian population aged 16 and over.

Literacy skills have never been more important to national economies.Information and communications technology, as well as globalization, are forcingeconomies into a growing reliance on versatile and highly literate workers. Literacyskills are also essential for individuals to realize their full economic and social potential,and are the foundation upon which people acquire additional knowledge and skillsthroughout adulthood. Finally, literacy skills are strongly associated with individualoutcomes in multiple facets of life, such as work, education, home and the community.Inadequate proficiencies in literacy thus increase the risk of exclusion for specificsocietal groups.

International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey(IALSS)

Literacy skills of Canadians were assessed through the International Adult Literacyand Skills Survey (IALSS) conducted in 2003. More than 23,000 individuals aged16 and over from across the ten provinces and three territories participated, a sufficientnumber to provide accurate estimates for all of Canada’s jurisdictions. Moreover, thesample of Aboriginal people living in urban areas in Manitoba and Saskatchewan,and in selected communities in the territories, was large enough to provide estimatesfor those groups. While IALSS data are not representative of the total Aboriginalpopulation in Canada, they nevertheless provide a unique opportunity to examinethe literacy proficiency of a portion of the Aboriginal population in Canada.

IALSS assessed adult literacy across four domains: prose (skills needed tounderstand ordinary texts, such as news stories, brochures, and instruction manuals),document (skills needed to understand forms or graphics, such as job applications,maps, and timetables), numeracy (mathematical skills), and problem solving (planningand reasoning skills).

In each domain, Level 1 denotes the lowest proficiency level and Level 5 denotesthe highest proficiency level. Since only a small proportion of the population actuallyreached level 5, whenever results are presented by proficiency level, levels 4 and 5 arecombined.

Level 3 literacy proficiency is generally considered as the “desired” threshold ofcompetence for being able to cope with the increasing skill demands of today’sknowledge-based economy. Indeed, in developed countries, performance at Level 3


104

D5


or above is generally associated with a number of positive outcomes, such as bettereconomic success and independence, as well as improved opportunities for lifelonglearning.1 Individuals at Levels 1 and 2 of literacy proficiency, on the other hand,typically have not yet mastered the minimum foundation needed to attain higherlevels of performance in society.2

Findings

Incidence of high and low proficiency in Canada

At the pan-Canadian level, just over half (52%) of the adult population aged 16 andover in 2003 had levels of prose literacy proficiency at Level 3 or above. There thusremain a fairly large proportion of Canadian adults who show low levels of literacy:48% performed at Levels 1 or 2 on the prose literacy scale. These individuals arelikely to face real challenges in coping with the emerging skill demands of a knowledge-based economy.

Average proficiency scores of provinces andterritories

Literacy in Canada is not uniformly distributed. Saskatchewan, Alberta, BritishColumbia, and the Yukon are the four jurisdictions where average proficiency scoreswere found to be consistently above the Canadian averages across all four domainsmeasured in IALSS 2003. On the other hand, average proficiency scores inNewfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Nunavut were found to beconsistently below the Canadian average. In Quebec, the average scores for proseand document proficiency were below the Canadian averages, while for the numeracyand problem solving proficiencies there were no significant differences (Table D.5.1).

When looking at the proportions of the adult population aged 16 and over ateach level of the prose proficiency scale, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick,Quebec, and Nunavut clearly have a significant proportion of their adult populationat risk of not being able to fully reach their social and economic potential. Theproportion of individuals scoring below Level 3 on the prose proficiency scale is around55% in the three provinces; in Nunavut this proportion reaches 73% (Chart D.5.1and Table D.5.2).

Literacy

105

D5


The factors associated with literacy proficiencies are multiple and they interactin complex ways. Following are potential explanations for the particularly highproficiency scores of the Yukon and the particularly low average proficiency scores ofNunavut.

The Yukon has the highest average proficiency scores in all four literacy domains,as well as the highest proportion of the adult population scoring at Levels 3, 4, and 5(67%) on the prose literacy scale. Data from the 2001 Census of Canada and the2003 Yukon Labour Force Survey show that when compared to Canada as a whole,the population in the Yukon is more concentrated in the 25-to-54 age group and inmanagement, social science and government occupations. These ages (especially the46-to-55 age group) and types of occupations have been found to be associated withhigher literacy performance.

The overall lower average literacy scores and lower proportion of adults atLevel 3 or above on the prose literacy scale in Nunavut can be explained by the factthat IALSS assessments were conducted solely in English or French. The mothertongue of over 60% of respondents in Nunavut is neither English nor French butInuktitut. Furthermore, over half of the Nunavut respondents use Inuktitut on a dailybasis. Since IALSS measures literacy of respondents in English or French, it does not

Chart D.5.1

Percentage of population at each prose proficiency level, population aged 16 and over, Canada and jurisdictions, 2003

Note: This chart contains certain estimates with relatively high coefficients of variation. Please see Table D.5.2 for more details.


percentage

30 1020 050 4070 6080

30 102050 4070 6080 0 3020 5040 7060 8010

3020 5040 7060 8010

percentage

Y.T.

Alta.

B.C.

Sask.

N.S.

N.W.T.

Man.

Can.

Ont.

P.E.I.

Que.

N.L.

N.B.

Nvt.

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4/5


106

D5


provide an accurate profile of the effective competencies of the population in Nunavut.For a majority of respondents in this jurisdiction, IALSS results are more an indicatorof their proficiencies in a second language, especially for older age groups.

Urban and rural populations

At the pan-Canadian level, the proportion of adults at each level of the prose literacyscale did not differ noticeably between the urban and the rural populations(Table D.5.2).

At the jurisdictional level, the largest differences between the urban and therural populations were found in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, theNorthwest Territories, and Nunavut, where the proportion of the population at orabove Level 3 was at least 12 percentage points higher in the urban than in the ruralpopulations (Chart D.5.2 and Table D.5.2).

Urban

Rural

Chart D.5.2

Proportion of the urban and the rural populations at or above Level 3 for prose proficiency, population aged 16 and over,Canada and jurisdictions, 2003


percentage

0 3020 5040 706010

percentage

0 3020 5040 706010

N.W.T.

Nvt.

N.L.

N.B.

Que.

N.S.

Man.

Sask.

Alta.

Y.T.

Can.

B.C.

P.E.I.

Ont.

Literacy

107

D5


Prose literacy proficiency and age

At the pan-Canadian level, the largest proportion of the population within each agegroup reached Level 3 on the prose literacy scale—the level considered as the desiredthreshold for coping in a knowledge-based society. One exception to this pattern wasobserved among the population aged 66 and over, for whom the largest proportionwas found at Level 1 (Table D.5.3).

Chart D.5.3 shows that proficiency in prose literacy tends to decrease withage. The largest observed decline occurred between the two oldest age groups. Amajority of those aged 66 and over (82%) scored at Levels 1 or 2 on the prose literacyscale, considerably more than the still high percentage (58%) among those aged 56to 65.

For the younger age groups, the proportion of individuals with prose proficiencylevels at Level 3 or above was 62% for 16- to 25-year-olds, 67% for 26- to 35-year-olds, 59% for 36- to 45-year-olds, and 56% for 46- to 55-year-olds.

Across all jurisdictions, more than one-third of individuals aged 16 to 25 haveprose proficiency scores below the Level 3 benchmark. This could negatively impacttheir participation in postsecondary education and their success in the labour market.

Chart D.5.3

Distribution of prose proficiency levels, by age group, population aged 16 and over, Canada, 2003

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4/5


80

0

100

20

40

60

20

60

40

80

80

0

100

20

40

60

20

60

40

80



16 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and over


108

D5


Educational attainment and prose proficiency

The contribution of a strong foundation in literacy to educational success is well-known. At the same time, high levels of education should be expected to lead tohigher levels of literacy.

At the pan-Canadian level, 78% of the population aged 16 and over with auniversity degree achieved Level 3 or above for prose proficiency, compared to 22% ofthose without a high school diploma. Approximately one-third of the populationaged 16 and over with a university degree (35%) is at the highest levels of proseproficiency, compared to 4% of the population without a high school diploma(Table D.5.4).

Across jurisdictions, the proportions of university graduates who achieved Levels4 or 5 for prose proficiency were lowest in Quebec (30%) and Ontario (31%), andhighest in Saskatchewan (45%), the Northwest Territories (45%), and Yukon (50%).

Employment and document proficiency

While many factors are likely to interact in finding employment, there clearly is arelationship between literacy proficiency and labour market outcomes. Among theliteracy domains, document literacy is the one often regarded as the most relevant inthe analysis of the relationship between literacy and the labour market. At the Canadalevel, individuals who have document literacy scores at the lowest level of proficiencyhave a much lower employment rate than do those at higher levels of proficiency. Forinstance, 57% of individuals who scored at Level 1 of the document proficiency scaleare employed, compared to 81% of those who scored at Levels 4/5 (Chart D.5.4,Table D.5.5). Individuals at Levels 1 and 2 of document proficiency have employmentrates that are 16 and 2 percentage points lower respectively than the nationalemployment rate (73%). In contrast, individuals at Levels 3 and 4/5 have employmentrates that are 4 and 8 percentage points higher than the national employment rate.There is a notable increase in the employment rate between the population atproficiency Levels 1 and 2.

Literacy

109

D5


As Canada is moving towards an increasingly knowledge-based economy, thedemand for high literacy proficiency is likely to increase further in the future. Thesefindings highlight the importance of building and maintaining human capital amongstCanadians of working age.

The relationship between document literacy proficiency and employability isalso observed across provinces and territories, although this relationship appearsstronger in some jurisdictions than in others. The largest percentage point differencein employment rates between individuals at Levels 4/5 and those at Level 1 werefound in Newfoundland and Labrador (40), British Columbia (34), the NorthwestTerritories (31), Yukon (30), and Nunavut (47). The difference in employment ratesbetween individuals at Levels 4/5 and those at Level 1 of the document literacy scalewere much smaller in Prince Edward Island (17) and Alberta (11) (Table D.5.5).

Chart D.5.4

Employment rate, by document proficiency levels, population aged 16 to 65, Canada and jurisdictions, 2003



Can.

N.L.

P.E.I.

N.S.

N.B.

Que.

Ont.

Man.

Sask.

Alta.

B.C.

Y.T.

N.W.T.

Nvt.

percentage

0 3020 5040 706010 80 10090

percentage

0 3020 5040 706010 80 10090

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4/5


110

D5


Prose literacy in selected Aboriginal populations

As mentioned above, IALSS increased the sample size of Aboriginal people living inurban areas in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and in selected communities in theterritories (covering a majority of the populated areas). Thus, this section describesthe prose literacy proficiency of the Aboriginal population aged 16 and over living inurban Manitoba and urban Saskatchewan, in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon,as well as the Inuit population in Nunavut.

Chart D.5.5

Distribution of prose proficiency levels, by Aboriginal (urban) and non-Aboriginal (urban and rural) populations aged16 and over in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 2003

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4/5


80

0

20

40

60

20

60

40

80

80

0

20

40

60

20

60

40

80


Total UrbanAboriginal

Urban andrural non-Aboriginal

UrbanAboriginal

Urban andrural non-Aboriginal

The prose literacy performance of the Aboriginal populations surveyed isgenerally lower than that of the total Canadian population. In Manitoba andSaskatchewan, a little over 60% of the urban Aboriginal population scored belowLevel 3 on the prose proficiency scale, compared with 45% of non-Aboriginal peoplein Manitoba and 39% in Saskatchewan (Chart D.5.5 and Table D.5.6).

There is little difference in the distribution of prose proficiency scores amongthe urban Aboriginal people surveyed in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Turning to the territories, 55% of the Aboriginal population in Yukon and 69%of the Aboriginal population in the Northwest Territories had prose proficiency scoresbelow Level 3. In Nunavut, the proportion of the Inuit population scoring under theLevel 3 benchmark on the prose proficiency scale was 88% (Table D.5.7).

It is important to understand the context behind these findings. The literacyperformance of the Aboriginal populations surveyed in IALSS is in part a reflectionof differing levels of formal education and use of a mother tongue other than Englishor French.

Canada Manitoba Saskatchewan

Literacy

111

D5


For instance, compared to the non-Aboriginal population, educationalattainment tends to be lower among the Aboriginal population. Data from the 2001Census show that 53% of Aboriginal adults in urban Manitoba and Saskatchewanhad completed high school or undertaken postsecondary education, compared to 63%of the total non-Aboriginal population. The gap was even larger in the territories,where 45% of Aboriginal people had completed high school or postsecondaryeducation, compared to 81% of the non-Aboriginal population.

These differences in educational attainment are important in light of the positiverelationship that exists between education and literacy proficiency. In the report3 onthe Canadian Results of the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, itwas demonstrated that Aboriginal respondents who had the lowest levels of formaleducational attainment also had the lowest average prose literacy scores. Further, itwas shown that in some jurisdictions, differences in literacy performance between theAboriginal and the non-Aboriginal populations were greatly reduced once educationwas accounted for. In other jurisdictions, however, large differences in literacyperformance between these populations remained even after controlling for education;this suggested that other factors were at play in explaining the lower literacyperformance of the Aboriginal populations surveyed. One such factor may be relatedto language, as discussed above.

Endnotes

1. Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L and Kolstad A, eds. (1993). “Adult Literacy in America: A firstlook at the National Adult Literacy Survey”. National Center for Education Statistics, USDepartment of Education, Washington, DC. Murray TS, Kirsch I, and Jenkins L, eds. (1997).“Adult Literacy in the OECD Countries: Technical Report of the First International Adult LiteracySurvey”. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Washington,DC. Tuijnman A. (2001). “Benchmarking Adult Literacy in North America: An InternationalComparative Study”. Ottawa: Statistics Canada and Human Resources Development Canada.

2. Strucker J and Yamamoto K. (2005). “Component Skills of Reading: Tipping Points and FiveClasses of Adult Literacy Learners”, (unpublished).

3. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Statistics Canada. 2005. Building on ourCompetencies: Canadian Results of the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey 2003.Catalogue no. 81-617-XIE. Ottawa.

113

D6


Educational attainment of thepopulation aged 25 to 64

Context

This indicator provides an international comparison of the educational attainment ofworking-age Canadians, those aged 25 to 64. From a life-cycle perspective, this ageband roughly covers people who are old enough to have completed their education,but still young enough to work.1 This indicator also provides a portrait of theeducational profile of the population with Aboriginal identity.

Canada’s economic prosperity and competitiveness is very much contingentupon the skills of its workforce. Educational attainment, or the highest level ofeducation completed, is one means of measuring this aspect of human capital.Indirectly, trends in attainment rates may also reflect changes in access to educationand the equity of education systems.

As older workers retire and are replaced by younger, more educated workers,the educational level of the labour force rises. Shifts in the educational profile of thelabour force provide insights into the impact of the retirement of different age cohortsand the demands for skills being placed on youth.

International comparisons

In many countries, one form of postsecondary education, either university or college,is prevalent. Canada offers two parallel systems of education after high school, bothof which require a high school certificate for admission and play a key role in thedevelopment of knowledge and skills.

In 2004, no other OECD nation had a higher proportion of its populationaged 25 to 64 with either a college or university credential than Canada (Chart D.6.1and Table D.6.1). It is important to note, however, that the data source for the Canadiandata (Labour Force Survey) does not allow for a clear delineation between“postsecondary non-tertiary education” and “Tertiary-type B education”, as used byOECD. As a result, the figure reported for college (Tertiary-type B) is inflated. In2004, 45% of Canada’s population aged 25 to 64 had either a college or universityeducation, compared with 39% in the United States, 37% in Japan, and 35% and 34%in Sweden and Finland, respectively.


114

D6


In terms of the percentage of the population with a university degree, Canadaranked sixth overall, according to the OECD. In 2004, 22% of Canada’s populationaged 25 to 64 had a university education. In comparison, the United States (30%),Norway (29%), the Netherlands (27%), Denmark (25%), and Iceland (24%) had ahigher proportion of their working-age population with university degrees. In 2004,Canada had a percentage of university graduates similar to that in Australia and Korea(Table D.6.1).

Among the jurisdictions, the proportion of the working-age population withuniversity degrees varies from 25% in Ontario to 13% in Newfoundland and Labradorand in Nunavut, and the proportion with college credentials varies from a high of41% in Yukon to 16% in Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan(Table D.6.1).

Aboriginal identity population: Improving theeducation profile

Between 1996 and 2001, census years with comparable Aboriginal identity data, theeducation profile improved noticeably among individuals aged 25 to 64 who identifiedthemselves as a member of an Aboriginal group.

In 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal people with less than high schooleducation was 39%, down substantially from 45% five years earlier (Chart D.6.2 andTable D.6.2).

Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of Aboriginal people with a high schooldiploma increased from 21% to 23%, while the share of those with postsecondaryqualifications at the trade, college, or university level increased from 33% to 39%.

percentage25200 5 10 15 40 45

Sweden

35200 5 10 15 40 453025

30 35

Canada

United States

Japan

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Belgium

Australia

Korea

percentage

Chart D.6.1

Proportion of the population aged 25 to 64 with college or university qualifications, top ten OECD countries, 2004


50

50

Educational attainment of the population aged 25 to 64

115

D6


More specifically, the proportion with a trade certificate increased from 14% to16%. Similarly, college diploma holders increased their share of the working-agepopulation from 13% to 15%. About 8% were university graduates, up from 6% fiveyears earlier.

These changes have helped close the gap somewhat between the educationalprofile of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations. In particular, the proportionwith a trade certificate in 2001 was higher among Aboriginal people, where theyrepresented 16% of the working-age population, compared with 13% in the non-Aboriginal population. The proportions with college qualifications were also close,15% among Aboriginal people and 18% among non-Aboriginal people (Tables D.6.2and D.6.4).

However, the gap in university graduates remained wide. In 2001, 8% ofAboriginal people aged 25 to 64 had a university education, compared with 23% inthe non-Aboriginal population.

Data at the Canada level permit an examination of the situation for specificAboriginal groups. Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of the North AmericanIndian, Métis, and Inuit populations aged 25 to 64 with less than high school educationfell by approximately six percentage points for each group, to 41% for the NorthAmerican Indian population, 34% for the Métis population, and 48% for the Inuitpopulation. Corresponding increases took place in the proportion with high schoolor postsecondary education. The proportion with a high school diploma increased by2 to 3 percentage points among all three groups, while the percentage of individualswith postsecondary qualifications increased from 33% to 37% among the NorthAmerican Indian population, 36% to 43% among the Métis population, and 28% to32% among the Inuit population.

Chart D.6.2

Population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by level of educational attainment, Canada, 1996 and 2001


20

50

40

30

10

0

20

50

40

30

10

0


Allpostsecondaryqualifications

Less thanhigh school

Highschool

Trades UniversityCollege

2001

1996


116

D6


Jurisdictions

Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of the Aboriginal identity population ofworking age with less than high school education decreased in every jurisdiction, andthe proportion of those with postsecondary qualifications at the trade, college, oruniversity level increased, with the exception of New Brunswick (Table D.6.2).

In 2001, between 31% and 51% of the Aboriginal working-age population hadpostsecondary qualifications (Chart D.6.3). The highest percentages were found inNewfoundland and Labrador (48%), Prince Edward Island (51%), Nova Scotia (48%),and Yukon (48%). Aboriginal people were least likely to have postsecondaryqualifications in Quebec (33%), Manitoba (32%), and Nunavut (31%).

Chart D.6.3

Population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, selected levels of educational attainment,Canada and jurisdictions, 2001


P.E.I. Y.T. N.S. N.L. Ont. N.B. B.C. Can. Alta. N.W.T. Sask. Que. Man. Nvt.

20

50

40

30

10

0

percentage percentage60

20

50

40

30

10

0

60

The Labour Force Survey constitutes another data source from which to drawinformation on the educational attainment of the Aboriginal population living inWestern Canada, which is a region with a fairly large concentration of Aboriginalpeople. The LFS, however, covers the Aboriginal population residing off-reserve only.Therefore, data from Table D.6.3 should not be directly compared with census-basedAboriginal tables in this series, which cover the Aboriginal population residing bothon and off reserve, and which define the levels of educational attainment somewhatdifferently.

Data from 2004 show that the proportions of the off-reserve Aboriginalpopulation aged 25 to 64 with postsecondary credentials at the college and universitylevels were 28% in Manitoba, 19% in Saskatchewan, 26% in Alberta, and 24% inBritish Columbia. The proportion of Aboriginal people residing off reserve with abachelor’s degree or a university degree or certificate above the bachelor’s degree was10% in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and 8% in British Columbia(Table D.6.3).

Less than high school

All postsecondary qualifications

Educational attainment of the population aged 25 to 64

117

D6


Evolution of educational attainment over time

One way to examine the evolution of educational attainment over time is to comparethe educational attainment of different age cohorts for a single census year. If youngerAboriginal cohorts show a higher level of educational attainment than the olderAboriginal cohorts, it suggests that educational attainment among the Aboriginalpopulation is rising over time.

Examination of 2001 Census results shows that substantially fewer Aboriginalpeople in the younger age groups had not completed high school, as compared withAboriginal people aged 55 to 64 (Chart D.6.4 and Table D.6.2). Additionally, theproportion with a high school diploma was highest among 25- to 34-year-olds, andlowest among 55- to 64-year-olds. Similar trends were observed for individuals whoidentified themselves as North American Indian, Métis, and Inuit.

Chart D.6.4

Population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by level of educational attainment and age group, Canada, 2001


20

50

40

30

10

0


60

20

50

40

30

10

0

60

Allpostsecondaryqualifications

Less thanhigh school

Highschool

Trades UniversityCollege

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

The proportion of Aboriginal people with postsecondary credentials was alsonoticeably higher among the younger cohorts, as compared with Aboriginal peopleaged 55 to 64. Similar trends were observed in the North American Indian, Métisand Inuit populations.

Interestingly, more Aboriginal people aged 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 had tradequalifications (17% for both age groups) than the youngest age group (14%). Similarly,more 45- to 54-year-olds held a university degree (9%) than the 35- to 44-year-olds(7%). This data may in part be a reflection of the significant amount of continuingeducation among the adult Aboriginal population after the age of 34.

Educational attainment and gender

Examination of census results shows that between 1996 and 2001, the educationprofile of both Aboriginal men and women improved noticeably, as the proportion ofAboriginal men and women with less than high school education decreased 6 and 7percentage points, respectively (Chart D.6.5 and Table D.6.5).


118

D6


Chart D.6.5 reveals larger overall increases in the share of Aboriginal womenwith postsecondary education as compared with Aboriginal men. Over the five-yearperiod, the proportion of Aboriginal men with postsecondary credentials went up4 percentage points, while this proportion went up 6 percentage points for Aboriginalwomen.

In 2001, Aboriginal men were more likely than Aboriginal women to havetrade qualifications (20% versus 12%, respectively). On the other hand, Aboriginalwomen were considerably more likely than Aboriginal men to have college diplomas(18% versus 11%) or university degrees (9% versus 6%).

Increases in the percentage of men and women with postsecondary credentialsover the five-year period were observed among the North American Indian and Métispopulations. A fairly large difference between the proportion of men and womenwith postsecondary credentials in 1996 and in 2001 was observed among the Inuitpopulation: this proportion went up 6 percentage points among women, while thisproportion actually decreased 1 percentage point among men. This decline was dueto proportionately fewer Inuit men obtaining trade qualifications in 2001 as comparedwith 1996.

Endnote

1 . The labour force participation rate falls off after age 55. Still, about half the population aged 55 to64 continues to be active in the labour market.

Chart D.6.5

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by sex,Canada, 1996 and 2001



High school

Trades

College

University

All postsecondary


High school

Trades

College

University

All postsecondary

Females

Males

percentage25200 5 10 15 40 4530 35 50

25200 5 10 15 40 4530 35 50percentage

2001

1996

119

E


Chapter E

Transitions and outcomes 121

E1 Transitions to postsecondary education 123

E2 Transitions to the labour market 129

E3 Labour market outcomes 137

120



Chapter E chartsChart E.1.1Participation rate at the university level, by age,Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006 124

Chart E.1.2Participation rate at the college level, by age,Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006 124

Chart E.1.3University participation rate among 20- to24-year-olds, Canada and provinces, 1995/1996and 2005/2006 125

Chart E.1.4Postsecondary education (PSE) status of 22- to24-year-olds who were no longer in high school,Canada and provinces, December 2003 127

Chart E.2.1Proportion of 20- to 24-year-old students whowere also working, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 130

Chart E.2.2Proportion of 20- to 24-year-olds who werenon-students and employed, 2005/2006 131

Chart E.2.3Percentage of 1995 and 2000 university graduatesworking full-time, two and five years aftergraduation, by province of study 132

Chart E.2.4Percentage of 1995 and 2000 college graduatesworking full-time, two and five years aftergraduation, by province of study 132

Chart E.2.5Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000university graduates working full-time, five yearsafter graduation, by sex and selected field of study(in thousands of 2001 constant dollars) 134

Chart E.2.6Mobility characteristics of the class of 2000,university graduates, Canada and provinces 135

Chart E.2.7Mobility characteristics of the class of 2000,college graduates, Canada and jurisdictions 136

Chart E.3.1Unemployment rates of population aged 15 and over,by level of education, Canada, 1990 to 2006 138

Chart E.3.2Unemployment rates of 25- to 29-year-olds,selected levels of education, Canada andprovinces, 2006 139

Chart E.3.3Distribution of earners, by educational attainmentat different earnings levels, Canada, 2000 140

Chart E.3.4Relative earnings for 25- to 64-year-olds, by level ofeducational attainment, selected OECD countries(high school and trade-vocational education = 100),2002, 2003 and 2004 140

Chart E.3.5Average employment income, by age group andeducation level, Canada, 2000 141

Transitions and outcomes


Transitions and outcomes

Introduction

The transition from secondary school to the postsecondary world and into the labourmarket is a critical stage for young people. New surveys are beginning to shed lighton youth pathways through these important years. While more research is needed, itis clear that the pathways are varied and complex.

To evaluate the performance of education systems, outcomes must be measured.It is difficult to disentangle the role of the education systems from that of thecommunities and myriad other factors.

Indicator E1 addresses youth transitions to postsecondary education. Data fromthe Labour Force Survey are used to trace education participation year by year fromage 15 to adulthood. High school graduation patterns of youth are examined usingthe Youth in Transition Survey (YITS). This survey also affords a look at the proportionof youth progressing to postsecondary education—including those youth who havenot completed high school—and their educational status by the time they reach theirearly to mid-twenties.

Indicator E2 looks at transitions to the labour market, including the extent towhich students combine schooling and work, along with an examination ofemployment rates, earnings, and mobility characteristics for recent postsecondarygraduates.

Indicator E3, labour market outcomes, examines unemployment rates andearnings for different levels of educational attainment, in Canada and abroad. Analyseson the association between educational attainment and unemployment are alsoconducted for the off-reserve Aboriginal population in Western Canada.

123

E1


Transitions to postsecondaryeducation

Context

This indicator considers the transition from high school to postsecondary education.Participation rates in education for individuals aged 15 to 29 are presented, comparingthe 1995/1996 and 2005/2006 rates for Canada and the provinces. The Youth inTransition Survey (YITS) is used to look at high school graduation in 1999 and2003 based on two separate cohorts of youth that have been surveyed. Data fromYITS are also used to determine the percentage of youth who went on to postsecondaryeducation, and to examine their progression through postsecondary education. Theseissues are examined at both the Canada and jurisdictional levels.

A number of factors influence the level of participation in postsecondaryeducation and the transition from school to the labour market. They include theavailability of educational programs, accessibility of financial support, labour marketconditions, and the real and perceived benefits of education. In Canada, the differenteducation systems in each jurisdiction also play a role in the education path followedby students.

Findings

Participation in education

The transition to postsecondary education begins to be noticeable among 17-year-olds, although by 2005/2006, more of them were at the primary/secondary schoollevel than 10 years earlier (Table E.1.1).

Between 1995/1996 and 2005/2006, the participation rate for universityremained stable for 17-year-olds, but almost doubled for 18-year-olds, rising from10% to 19% (Chart E.1.1 and Table E.1.1). This increase may have been partly due tothe elimination of Grade 13 in Ontario. The trend to an increasing rate of participationin university is also clear for every age from 19 to 24, as reflected in the 4- to 6-percentage-point increases. By 2005/2006, more than one-quarter of young adultsaged 19 through to 22 were in university, as were about one-fifth of 23- and 24-year-olds.

At the college level, the participation rate declined among 17-year-olds between1995/1996 and 2005/2006, partly reflecting higher rates of participation at theprimary/secondary level. Participation rates were generally similar for both years forstudents between the ages of 18 and 29, with the exception of a decline in participationamong 21-year-olds. College participation rates continued to be highest for youngpeople between the ages of 18 and 20 (Chart E.1.2 and Table E.1.1).


124

E1


University participation rate, provinces

Although the data do not permit an examination of participation rates by single agefor the provinces, information is available for three age groups that also cover 15- to29-year-olds. The university participation rate did vary somewhat for the 15-to-19age group between 1995/1996 and 2005/2006, but the greatest differences—increasesin every province—are seen in the 20-to-24 group (Chart E.1.3 and Table E.1.2).The rise was particularly noticeable in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba,as each recorded a 10-percentage-point rise in the participation rate at the universitylevel. By contrast, Alberta’s rate remained fairly stable and, at 17% at the end of theperiod, it was the lowest among the provinces.


30

0

30

0

25

20

25

20

10

5

10

5

15 15

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Age

2005/2006

1995/1996


0 0

25

20

25

20

10

5

10

5

15 15

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Age

Chart E.1.1

Participation rate at the university level, by age, Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006

Source: Table E.1.1.

3535

Chart E.1.2

Participation rate at the college level, by age, Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006


1995/1996

2005/2006


125

E1


High school graduation at age 19

Results from the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS), a longitudinal survey developedby Human Resources and Social Development Canada and Statistics Canada, can beused to better understand the major transitions in the lives of youth, particularlytheir pathways from high school to postsecondary education and training, and theinitial transition from schooling to the labour market.

YITS surveys two cohorts of youth every two years. One cohort entered thesurvey when they were between the ages of 18 and 20 in 1999 (referred to in YITS ascohort B); a second cohort began their participation in YITS when they were 15 yearsold in 1999 (referred to in YITS as cohort A).

This section presents information on the two samples of 19-year-olds thathave been surveyed by YITS; one in 1999 through cohort B and the other in 2003through cohort A. For those who were 19 years of age in 1999, the data used are fromthe first cycle of YITS and are representative of Canadian youth who were 19 as ofDecember 1999. For those who were 19 in 2003, the data used are from the thirdcycle of YITS-cohort A. In the first cycle, cohort A was representative of Canadianyouth who were 15 years of age as of December 1999, but the results from the thirdcycle for cohort A may not be representative of 19-year-old Canadian youth inDecember 2003 (see the 2007 PCEIP Handbook for more details). For this reason, acomparison of the educational profile of these two populations of 19-year-olds canonly be made while keeping these characteristics in mind.

By the time the 15-year-olds of 1999 were 19 in 2003, 87% had graduatedfrom high school, while another 5% were still pursuing their high school education.Another 8% had dropped out of high school without completing their studies(Table E.1.3).1


0 0

25

20

25

20

10

5

10

5

15 15

Chart E.1.3

University participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds, Canada and provinces, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006

Note: The participation rate is based on a monthly average from September to April.


Alta. B.C. P.E.I. Can. N.L. N.B. Que. Sask. Man. Ont. N.S.

1995/1996

2005/2006

35

30 30

35


126

E1


Among the cohort of youth that was 19-years-old in 2003, roughly 10% ofmales were classified as dropouts, compared with 6% of females the same age(Table E.1.3).

While a direct comparison between the two groups of 19-year-olds that havecycled through YITS can only be made with caution, the results seem to suggest thatthe high school graduation profile of 19-year-olds in 2003 had improved in relationto the 19-year-olds in 1999, with a 7-percentage-point rise in the incidence of highschool graduation.2

Among the provinces, the proportion of youth who had dropped out of highschool in 2003, the year in which young people from cohort A had their 19th birthdays,ranged from about 11% in Quebec to about 4% in Prince Edward Island. In Quebec,the proportion of 19-year-olds who had graduated from high school in 2003 wasabout 82%, lower than the Canadian average. However, 7% of Quebec youth werestill in high school at age 19—the highest proportion in Canada, along with NovaScotia. In 2003, the largest male–female gaps in terms of the incidence of droppingout were observed in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Alberta. The provinceswith smaller or no gender gaps were Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia(Table E.1.3).

Some of those who leave high school before graduating will, over time, returnto complete their secondary studies or progress to other forms of education, such aspostsecondary education, with or without ever having formally graduated from highschool. The last section below, which focuses on high school dropouts who return toeducation, looks specifically at the educational experiences that the YITS cohort Byouth who were high school dropouts when they were 18- to 20-years-old had had bythe time they reached the 22-to-24 age group.

Participation in postsecondary education by theages of 22 to 24

After three cycles of YITS, it is possible to examine the educational situation of thosewho were 18 to 20 years of age in 1999 by the time they had reached their early tomid-twenties. In 2003, when YITS cohort B had reached the ages of 22 to 24, aboutthree-quarters of them who were no longer in high school had taken some type ofpostsecondary education (whether or not they had completed it at the time of thesurvey) (Chart E.1.4 and Table E.1.4).3 In YITS, postsecondary education refers toany postsecondary program that is above the high school level, is geared towards adiploma, certificate or degree, and would take three months or more to complete. In2003, the proportion of 22- to 24-year-olds in YITS who had participated in someform of postsecondary education was higher for females (82%) than for males (71%)(Table E.1.4). The proportion who had begun a postsecondary education programbut dropped out before completing it was fairly similar for both sexes (11% for females;13% for males).4


127

E1


Among the provinces, the proportion of youth who had participated inpostsecondary education by the time they reached 22 to 24 years of age ranged from80% in Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario to 65% in Alberta. In all provinces,the percentage of females was higher than the percentage of males. Saskatchewanand Alberta were the provinces with the highest proportion of youth who had graduatedfrom high school by the ages of 22 to 24, but had never pursued postsecondaryeducation (24%). In Quebec and Ontario, the figures for both males and femaleswere lower than the aggregate estimates at the Canada level (Table E.1.4).

By the time individuals have reached the 22-to-24 age band, it can reasonablybe assumed that a substantial proportion should have been able to finish an initialprogram of postsecondary education: 44% of those who were aged 22 to 24 in 2003had graduated from a postsecondary program, while another 20% were still pursuingstudies in their first postsecondary program. Some people who had graduated fromone postsecondary program had, by this age, already gone on to pursue furthereducation (these youth are referred to as “postsecondary education graduate continuers”in Table E.1.4).

The proportion of youth who had graduated from postsecondary education byDecember 2003 was highest in Quebec (54%), partly reflecting the structure of theprovince’s education system (Table E.1.4). Most Quebec students finish high school

Chart E.1.4

Postsecondary education (PSE) status of 22- to 24-year-olds1 who were no longer in high school,Canada and provinces,2 December 2003

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90percentage

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90percentage

Postsecondary participation

High school dropouts, nopostsecondary

High school graduates,no postsecondary

1. This sample of youth is representative of Canadian youth who were 18 to 20 years of age as of December 1999. However, in 2003, they were notrepresentative of 22- to 24-year-old Canadian youth.

2. Province of interview in 2003.Notes: Provinces ranked by postsecondary participation. Percentage distributions, which are calculated on rounded data, may not add up to 100%. This

chart contains certain estimates with relatively high coefficients of variation. Please see Table E.1.4 for more details. For more information on themethodology for the Youth in Transition Survey, see 2007 PCEIP Handbook (Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.2007. Education indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).



Ontario

Nova Scotia

Quebec

Canada

British Columbia

New Brunswick

Manitoba


Saskatchewan

Alberta


128

E1


a year earlier than students in other provinces and then enter a CEGEP (apostsecondary institution) to pursue a college level or university preparation program.

If access to postsecondary education is considered not only in terms ofparticipation, but also in terms of persistence and completion, it is worth noting that,by the time they have reached the 22-to-24 age group, about 12% of Canadian youngpeople were postsecondary dropouts; i.e., by 2003, they had attended some type ofpostsecondary program but had not completed it (Table E.1.4).

At the Canada level in 2003, approximately 15% of 22- to 24-year-olds werehigh school graduates who had never attempted a postsecondary program(Table E1.4). In other words, they had the fundamental academic preparation for apostsecondary education but, for one reason or another, had not pursued it by theirmid-twenties. A relatively higher proportion of males (18%) than females (12%) fellinto this category. This gender gap was observed in all provinces except Prince EdwardIsland, where a similar percentage of male and female 22- to 24-year-olds were highschool graduates who had not attended a postsecondary program.

Another 9% of those aged 22 to 24 were high school dropouts with nopostsecondary education. This percentage was higher for males (12%) than forfemales (6%).

High school dropouts who return to education

Some people who drop out of high school do eventually complete their studies atthis level and/or participate in a postsecondary program. Among the 22- to 24-year-olds who were in Cycle 3 of YITS in 2003, some reported that they were high schooldropouts in 1999, when they were 18 to 20 years old. By the time they were aged 22to 24, however, 38% of these dropouts had returned to school and had either obtaineda high school diploma or had participated in a postsecondary program (Table E.1.5).A higher percentage of females (46% versus 33% of males) had returned to graduatefrom high school or to pursue a postsecondary education (whether or not they hadcompleted this postsecondary education).

In the provinces, the percentage of youth who were high school dropoutswhen they were in the 18-to-20 age group but who had obtained their high schoolgraduation or undertaken postsecondary education by the time they were 22- to 24-years-old ranged from 27% in Manitoba to 51% in Nova Scotia (Table E.1.5). InQuebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, the female dropouts weremore likely to later graduate from high school or to pursue a postsecondary educationthan their male counterparts.

Endnotes

1. As mentioned earlier in Section C3, graduation rates may differ because of different data sources,different definitions, or different parameters such as the age at which they are measured.

2. Other studies such as Bowlby (2005) have confirmed this, using data from the Labour Force Survey,by showing a decline in the proportion of high school dropouts between the early 1990s and theearly 2000s.

3. This sample of youth is representative of Canadian youth who were 18 to 20 years of age as ofDecember 1999. However, in 2003, they were not representative of 22- to 24-year-old Canadianyouth.

4. In terms of Table E.1.4 and Chart E.1.4, youth who had participated in postsecondary education asof December 2003 include the following categories: postsecondary graduate continuers,postsecondary graduate non-continuers, postsecondary continuers, and postsecondary dropouts.See the 2007 PCEIP Handbook for definitions of each of these categories.

129

E2


Transitions to the labourmarket

Context

This indicator considers the transition from postsecondary education to the labourmarket, through the examination of employment rates and earnings, as well as themobility of students and graduates across Canada and its jurisdictions.

This indicator first looks at the connection between education and theemployment status of the population aged 15 to 29. Later, it examines the transitionfrom postsecondary education to work by means of full-time employment, earningsand migration characteristics. Postsecondary graduates represent a large investmentin the development of human capital; therefore, it is important to monitor theirtransition from school to the labour market.

Findings

Transitions between education and the labourmarket

In 2005/2006, just over half of all students aged 17 to 29 were working while theyattended school. At every age in this range, the percentage of students with jobs washigher in 2005/2006 than in 1995/1996 (Table E.2.1). For these ages overall, manycollege (55%) and university (50%) students reported combining jobs and school.Among students aged 17 to 25, those in college were more likely than those inuniversity to be working. From age 26 to 29, however, the situation was reversed, andthe percentages of university students who worked exceeded those for college students.

The provincial data by age group also show an overall increase in the proportionof students combining school with work (Table E.2.2). As expected, the proportionsrose by age group, from 37% for the 15-to-19 group to 57% in the 25-to-29 group in2005/2006. And, for the most part, the percentages of working students by provinceincreased for each of the three age groups between 1995/1996 and 2005/2006.However, considerable variations exist across provinces in the percentages of studentscombining school with study. In the 20-to-24 age group, 30% of university studentsin Newfoundland and Labrador and nearly 4 out of 10 students in New Brunswickcombined school with study in 2005/2006 (Chart E.2.1). In comparison, nearly 6 outof 10 students in Quebec and Manitoba in this age group combined school with study.


130

E2


In 2005/2006, 71% of 15-year-olds were attending school at the elementary-secondary level and were not working. Another 19% were attending school and working(Table E.2.3).

By age 18, much greater variety is evident in the combinations of schoolingand work, reflecting the transitions underway. In 2005/2006, 14% of 18-year-oldswere attending elementary-secondary school and working, and 14% were at that leveland not working. Another 11% of 18-year-olds were college students with jobs, and8% were college students without jobs. Six percent were working while attendinguniversity, while 11% were university students who did not have a job. And, in 2005/2006, 21% of 18-year-olds were working but were not part of the formal school system(Table E.2.3).

At age 21, university accounts for a peak share of the student population. In2005/2006, 14% were combining university with work; another 15% were attendinguniversity but not working. Among all of the education–labour force combinations atage 21, the non-student employed category was largest, representing 42% of thepopulation.

By age 25, a large majority of the population was no longer in the educationsystem. Over two-thirds (67%) of 25-year-olds were working, another 6% were lookingfor work, and 9% were not in the labour force (Table E.2.3). An examination of thelabour force categories by age group reveals a similar pattern: 72% of 25- to 29-year-olds in Canada were no longer students and were employed in 2005/2006 (Table E.2.4).Another 5% were seeking work, and 9% were neither students nor in the labour force.

The provincial data again reflect Alberta’s strong labour market, as over three-quarters (76%) of the province’s 25- to 29-year-olds were “non-student employed” in2005/2006 (Table E.2.4). With the exceptions of Newfoundland and Labrador (62%)and Nova Scotia (69%), the figures for the other provinces were closer to the Canada-level estimate of 72%. And, although about half (48%) of the 20- to 24-year-oldpopulation Canada-wide was employed in 2005/2006, Alberta had the largestproportion of employed people in this age group—60% (Chart E.2.2). By contrast,estimates for this age group in the other provinces range from 34% (Newfoundlandand Labrador) to 54% in Saskatchewan.

P.E.I.Sask. Can. Man.N.B. B.C.Alta.


1995/1996

2005/2006

60

0

30

40

50

10

Ont.N.S. Que.N.L.

20

Chart E.2.1

Proportion of 20- to 24-year-old students who were also working, Canada and provinces, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006

60

0

30

40

50

10

20



131

E2


Full-time employment of postsecondary graduates

Compared with the 1995 graduating class, 2000 graduates from both college anduniversity had higher rates of full-time employment two years after graduation(Table E.2.5). Among university graduates, 74% of the 2000 class worked full-timetwo years after graduation, compared with 69% of the 1995 class (Chart E.2.3).Similarly, among college graduates, 78% of the 2000 class worked full-time two yearsafter graduation, compared with 70% of the 1995 class (Chart E.2.4). Five yearsafter graduation, approximately 80% of postsecondary graduates were working full-time, as had been the case in 1995. At the university level, a higher percentage ofgraduates were working full-time in all provinces five years after graduation than twoyears after graduation.

The pattern for college students graduating in 2000 was more diverse acrossprovinces. In general, college graduates also experienced increases in the percentagesworking full-time five years after graduation compared with two years after. However,2000 graduates in Manitoba and Saskatchewan experienced almost no increases whilethose in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick experienced slight decreases.

Several provinces saw a slightly lower percentage of their 2000 college oruniversity graduates in full-time employment five years after graduation in comparisonwith 1995 graduates. This is true for Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia at theuniversity level, and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the college level.

Chart E.2.2

Proportion of 20- to 24-year-olds who were non-students and employed, 2005/2006


P.E.I. Sask.Can. Man. N.B.B.C. Alta.


Ont. N.S.Que.N.L.

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

70

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

70


132

E2


Chart E.2.3

Percentage of 1995 and 2000 university graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by province of study


60

0

30

40

50

10

20

P.E.I. Sask.Can. Man.N.B. B.C.Alta.Ont.N.S. Que.N.L.

100

90

80

70

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

100

90

80

70


1995 20005 years after

2 years after 2 years after

5 years after

Chart E.2.4

Percentage of 1995 and 2000 college graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by province of study


60

0

30

40

50

10

20

P.E.I. Sask.Can. Man.N.B. B.C.Alta.Ont.N.S. Que.N.L.

100

90

80

70

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

100

90

80

70


1995 20005 years after

2 years after 2 years after

5 years after


133

E2


In most fields of study, and at both time periods, a higher percentage of menthan women were working full-time (Tables E.2.6 and E.2.7). Between 1995 and2000, the percentage working full-time two years after graduation rose for both sexes;five years after graduation, the percentage for males declined slightly while thepercentage for females rose.

In 2000, graduates from most fields of study at the college level were morelikely to be employed five years after graduation than after only two years, the exceptionsbeing physical and life sciences and technologies, along with agriculture, naturalresources and conservation.

In 2000, five years after graduation, there was considerable variation in rates ofemployment by field of study for university graduates (Table E.2.6). The highestproportions of full-time employed university graduates were from business,management and public administration, as well as personal, protective andtransportation services. The lowest rates of full-time employment were amonggraduates of the visual and performing arts and communications technologies, as wellas physical and life sciences, and technologies, along with humanities.

Education and earnings

University graduates had higher median annual earnings than college graduates in1995 and 2000 (Table E.2.8). While median earnings in 2001 constant dollarsgenerally rose slightly for university graduates between 1995 and 2000, collegegraduates’ earnings remained steady at $28,000 two years after graduation and declinedfive years after graduation. This trend is common across jurisdictions, except in Ontarioand Alberta, where college graduates experienced an increase in median earningsfrom 1995 to 2000.

The distribution of earnings of 2000 graduates shows that males typically earnmore than females, with the greatest difference shown in the 75th percentile two andfive years after graduation (Table E.2.9). The gap in distribution of earnings betweencollege and university graduates grew five years after graduation, with a difference of$13,000 in the 50th and 75th percentiles, compared with a difference of $10,000 inthe 50th and $12,000 in the 75th percentiles two years after graduation.

Two years after graduation, in both 1995 and 2000, median earnings for collegegraduates remained steady for both males and females (Table E.2.10). By contrast,five years after graduation, earnings decreased for males and were steady at $31,000for females. All fields of study saw an increase in earnings in 2000 from two to fiveyears after graduation. Class of 2000 graduates from education programs at the collegelevel had the lowest median earnings both two and five years after graduation. Bycomparison, architecture, engineering and related technologies graduates had thehighest earnings. In addition, across fields of study there is generally a larger gap atthe college level than at the university level between male and female earnings, withsignificant gaps occurring in humanities and personal, protective and transportationservices.

Among university graduates, median earnings differ significantly from thoseof college graduates and generally increased between 1995 and 2000 for men andwomen in most fields of study (Chart E.2.5 and Table E.2.11). However, there wasconsiderable variation in median earnings among fields of study. Five years aftergraduation, median earnings of 2000 university graduates ranged from $34,000 forgraduates from visual and performing arts and communications technologies to$55,000 for graduates from architecture, engineering and related technologies. Whilefemale university graduates earned less than males in most fields, the gender gap inearnings narrowed over the period, with the largest decrease in the gap occurring inmathematics, computer and information sciences.


134

E2


Mobility of postsecondary students and graduates

For both 1995 and 2000 graduates, a higher proportion of university students thancollege students migrated out of their home province to study (Tables E.2.12 andE.2.13). Among 2000 university graduates, 8.6% had left their province of residenceto study at a university in another jurisdiction. This was more than twice the rate ofstudent mobility among college graduates (3.5%).

Unlike 1995 graduates, graduate migration was higher than student migrationfor 2000 university and college graduates. Among the 2000 university graduates, thepercentage of graduates who had left their jurisdiction of study two years aftergraduation (11.6%) exceeded the percentage of students who had left their jurisdictionof residence to attend university (8.6%). At the college level, 5.9% had left theirjurisdiction of study two years after graduation, surpassing the percentage of studentswho had left their jurisdiction of residence to attend college (3.5%) (Table E.2.13).In 1995, the situation was the opposite, with student migration higher than graduatemigration, especially at the university level (Table E.2.12).

In 2000, Quebec and Ontario continued to experience lower rates of out-migration of students and graduates at the university level than was the case for otherjurisdictions (Chart E.2.6). Ontario also had lower rates of student and graduatemobility at the college level (Chart E.2.7). Alberta gained the most overall frommobility as a result of net in-migration for college and university graduates. At the

Chart E.2.5

Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000 university graduates working full-time, five years after graduation,by sex and selected field of study (in thousands of 2001 constant dollars)

1. EDU - Education; VIS - Visual and Performing Arts, and Communications Technologies; HUM - Humanities; SOC - Social and BehaviouralSciences, and Law; BUS - Business, Management and Public Administration; PHY - Physical and Life Sciences, and Technologies; MATH - Mathematics,Computer and Information Sciences; ARC - Architecture, Engineering and Related Technologies; AGR - Agriculture, Natural Resources andConservation; HEA - Health, Parks, Recreation and Fitness.

Note: Some data should be used with caution. Please see Table E.2.11 for more details.


60

0

30

40

50

10

20

VIS1 ARC1Total MATH1SOC1 HEA1AGR1PHY1HUM1 BUS1EDU1

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

in thousands of dollars in thousands of dollars

1995 2000

Female

MaleBoth sexes

Female

MaleBoth sexes


135

E2


college level, Alberta is the only jurisdiction with any substantial gains from net overallmigration. At the university level, the only other province with gains from net overallmigration is Ontario, albeit with a much lower rate.

Newfoundland and Labrador continued to experience the largest losses inpercentage terms due to student and graduate mobility at the college level, followedclosely by the territories. At the university level, many provinces experienced substantialnet losses due to student and graduate mobility. They include Newfoundland andLabrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba andSaskatchewan. Among 2000 university graduates, Nova Scotia gained from studentmigration, however because of a larger out-migration of graduates Nova Scotiaexperienced a substantial net loss from overall migration.

Chart E.2.6

Mobility characteristics of the class of 2000, university graduates, Canada and provinces




Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Canada

Out-migration to study

In-migration to study

Out-migration after graduation

In-migration after graduation

percentage

percentage

060 50 20 10 2040 1030 504030 60

060 50 20 10 2040 1030 504030 60


136

E2


Chart E.2.7

Mobility characteristics of the class of 2000, college graduates, Canada and jurisdictions

Note: Data points not shown in the chart are too unreliable to be published or have been suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of theStatistics Act. The chart also contains certain estimates with relatively high coefficients of variation. Please see Table E.2.13 for more details.




Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Territories

Canada

percentage

percentage

060 50 20 10 2040 1030 504030 60

060 50 20 10 2040 1030 504030 60

Out-migration to study

In-migration to study

Out-migration after graduation

In-migration after graduation

137

E3



Context

This indicator shows the labour market outcomes for different levels of education interms of unemployment and earnings.

An important goal of education is the development of citizens who are able toparticipate as effective workers in a modern knowledge-based economy and society.This indicator focuses on two important labour market outcomes by examiningdifferences in unemployment rates and earnings by level of educational attainment inCanada and other industrialized countries. It also looks at these differences for youngercohorts, providing indications as to how youth with different levels of education arecoping in the transition from school to work. With the recently available LabourForce Survey data on the Aboriginal population in Western Canada, it sheds somelight on the relationship between levels of education and unemployment rates amongthe off-reserve Aboriginal people from these provinces.

These measures can help students and educators understand the benefits ofhigher education and can point to segments of the population where policy interventionmay be needed.

Findings

Unemployment rates and level of education

In Canada, the early 1990s were marked by a recession that bottomed out in 1993,with unemployment rates reaching 11%. The economy recovered in the second halfof the 1990s and unemployment rates gradually dropped to 6% by 2006 (Table E.3.1).

While unemployment rates were high for all individuals in the early 1990s,those with higher education fared best. At the lowest point of the recession, theunemployment rate for Canadians without high school completion was 17% comparedwith 6% for university graduates. By 2006, the unemployment rate had fallen to 12%for those with less than high school and 4% for university graduates (Chart E.3.1).


138

E3


In 2006, the unemployment rate for 25- to 29-year-olds with less than highschool stood at 13% compared with 4% for university graduates (Table E.3.2). In2006, the unemployment rates of university-educated 25- to 29-year-olds were between2% and 7% in all provinces. On the other hand, unemployment rates for those whodid not complete high school ranged from 6% in Alberta to over 20% in the fourAtlantic provinces (Chart E.3.2).

Overall, unemployment rates for people with less than high school educationwere at least double those of university graduates in all provinces except for BritishColumbia in 2006 and in more than half of them, they were more than three timeshigher (Chart E.3.2 and Table E.3.2). Youth with low educational attainment aremost at risk of economic marginalization, especially in weaker labour markets.

1994 2004200019981996

percentage percentage18

14

16

20061992 20021990

Chart E.3.1

Unemployment rates of population aged 15 and over, by level of education, Canada, 1990 to 2006

12

0

6

8

10

2

4

1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes individuals with trade certificate or diploma from a vocational school or apprenticeship training; non-university certificate or diploma from a

community college, CEGEP, school of nursing and similar programs at this level; university certificate below bachelor’s level.4. Includes individuals with bachelor’s degree or university degree/certificate above bachelor’s level.Notes: The data for 1995 to 1998 have been revised and are different from those previously published in 2005 PCEIP Report (Statistics Canada and

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2005. Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogueno. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).The unemployment rate is based on a monthly average from January to December.


Less than high school1

High school2

College or trade3

University4

18

14

16

12

0

6

8

10

2

4


139

E3


Unemployment rates and level of education in theAboriginal population

Among the Aboriginal population aged 15 and over, higher levels of formal educationalattainment are also associated with lower unemployment rates. This pattern isillustrated with the off-reserve Aboriginal labour force data for Manitoba,Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, for 2005 and 2006. In 2005, theunemployment rate for Aboriginal people with less than high school education stoodat 21.5% compared with 3.7% for university graduates (Table E.3.3). In 2006, eventhough the unemployment rate for Aboriginal university graduates increased2.2 percentage points over 2005, individuals in this group were still almost three timesless likely to be unemployed than Aboriginal people who did not complete high school.

Education and earnings

Educational attainment has a strong impact on earnings. For individuals, theexpectation of higher incomes is an incentive to invest in further education.

The distribution of earners by educational attainment demonstrates apolarization of earnings, with higher levels being largely dominated by those with thehighest amount of educational achievement. In 2000, more than 60% of earners inthe lowest annual earnings category (less than $20,000) had no more than a highschool education. However, more than 60% of earners in the top category ($100,000or more) had a university degree (Chart E.3.3 and Table E.3.4).

Chart E.3.2

Unemployment rates of 25- to 29-year-olds, selected levels of education, Canada and provinces, 2006

1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes individuals with bachelor’s degree or university degree/certificate above bachelor’s level.Note: The unemployment rate is based on a monthly average from January to December.


P.E.I.Sask. Can.Man. N.B.B.C.Alta.


Ont. N.S.Que. N.L.

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

60

0

30

40

50

10

20

Less than high schoolgraduation1

University graduates2


140

E3


Chart E.3.3

Distribution of earners, by educational attainment at different earnings levels, Canada, 2000

1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.4. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEPs, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.5. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).


< $20,000

$100,000 or more

$80,000 to < $100,000

$60,000 to < $80,000

$40,000 to < $60,000

100

$20,000 to <$40,000

600 4020 80

100600 4020 80

percentage

percentage

In 2003, mean annual earnings (before taxes) were 69% higher for universitygraduates and 12% higher for college or trade graduates than for individuals withhigh school diplomas (Table E.3.5). Those who did not complete high school earned22% less than those who did. Comparable differences exist across industrializedcountries (Chart E.3.4).

Chart E.3.4

Relative earnings for 25- to 64-year-olds, by level of educational attainment, selected OECD countries(high school and trade-vocational education = 100), 2002, 2003 and 2004

ratio ratio

Notes: Countries are ranked in descending order of relative earnings for the population with university education. Data for Italy not available at the collegelevel.


United States(2004)

United Kingdom(2004)

Canada(2003)

France(2004)

Germany(2004)

Italy(2002)

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

Below high school

College

University

University5

College4

Trade school3

High school2



141

E3


Differences in mean annual earnings by level of education increased with ageand, in 2000, peaked in the 50-to-54 age group (Table E.3.6).The gaps are largestwhen university graduates are compared with other workers. In the 25-to-29 agegroup, university graduates earned an average of $31,000, or about a third more thanthose with less than high school, who earned $21,000 (Chart E.3.5). In the 50-to-54age group, university-educated workers earned an average of $61,000, more than twicethe earnings of workers with less than high school ($29,000).

Chart E.3.5

Average employment income, by age group and education level, Canada, 2000

1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.4. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEPs, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.5. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).


70,000 70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

15 to 1920 to 24

25 to 2930 to 34

35 to 3940 to 44

45 to 4950 to 54

55 to 5960 to 64


High school2

Trade3

College4

University5

dollars dollars

Appendices


Appendices

1 Structure of education and trainingin Canada 145

2 Glossary 151

Appendices


Structure of education andtraining in CanadaIn Canada, education is the responsibility of the 10 provinces and 3 territories. Whileeducational structures and institutions across the country are similar in many ways,they have been developed by each jurisdiction to respond to the particularcircumstances, geographical situation, and historical and cultural heritage of thepopulation they serve. This appendix describes the various structures and organizationof education and training in Canada today.

Pre-elementary programs

Pre-elementary programs—pre-Grade 1 education offered by public, private, andfederal schools, as well as schools for the visually and hearing impaired—are availableto children, typically 4 or 5 years of age, in all jurisdictions.

Most jurisdictions offer one year of public pre-elementary programs, withQuebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta offering additional years(see Figure 1 at the end of this appendix). In most jurisdictions, pre-elementaryprograms in the year before Grade 1 are offered to children who turn 5 years of age bya certain date in the school year as specified in jurisdictional legislation. In mostjurisdictions, attendance in these programs is optional, although in Nova Scotia, andNew Brunswick it is mandatory. The intensity of these programs varies by jurisdiction,some offering full-day programs, some offering half-day programs, and some offeringboth.

In Quebec, one additional year of pre-elementary programming is publiclyavailable to some 4-year-olds with disabilities or from low-income families. In Ontario,the provision of an additional year of pre-elementary (for 4-year-olds) is dependenton the choice of the local school board, with funding coming from the Ministry ofEducation. In Ontario, all school boards offer this program for their students. InManitoba, one additional year of pre-elementary programming is offered at thediscretion of each school division with two school divisions currently providing thisprogram, which is not funded by the Department of Education. Two additional yearsof pre-elementary programming are funded in schools in Saskatchewan communitieswhere a significant portion of pre-school children are not ready to participate fully inthe learning opportunities offered to kindergarten and Grade 1 students. Theseprograms are not mandatory and not universal. Alberta also offers two additionalfully funded years of pre-elementary programming, targeted to students with disabilitiesor to those who are considered talented/gifted.

Appendix 1


146

1


In addition to publicly provided programs, some private schools in alljurisdictions also offer one or more years of pre-elementary programming. However,it is important to note that private day-care programs or early childhood educationprograms are not offered as part of the formal education system and are not includedin the data presented in this report on pre-elementary programs.

Elementary and secondary education

Public education is provided free to all Canadian citizens and permanent residentsuntil the end of secondary school—normally at age 18. The ages for compulsoryschooling vary from one jurisdiction to another; generally, schooling is required fromage 6 or 7 as of a certain date as specified in jurisdictional legislation (age 5 in NewBrunswick and British Columbia) to age 16. In New Brunswick, since July 1, 1999,schooling is compulsory to the age of 18 or until graduation, with all students whowere in the system as of that date affected by the new regulation.

In most jurisdictions, elementary-secondary education consists of 12 years ofstudy, Grades 1 through 12; the only exception is Quebec. Quebec’s elementary-secondary system has 11 years—6 years of elementary school and 5 years of secondaryschool. Following a major change in policy, 2002–2003 was the last year for Grade 13in Ontario. One immediate consequence of this change was the “double cohort” ofstudents entering the postsecondary system in 2003-2004 (comprising the lastgraduating class from the old system with the extra year and the first graduating classfrom the new system).

The elementary-secondary continuum is broken up into different gradecombinations in different jurisdictions so that the point of transition betweenelementary and secondary school varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (see Figure 1at the end of this appendix).

The organization of grades in schools varies by jurisdiction and can also vary atthe local level within a jurisdiction. Elementary schools cover the first six to eightyears of compulsory schooling. Afterwards, children may proceed to a middle schoolor junior high/intermediate school that usually covers Grade 6 or 7 to Grade 8 or 9,or they may go directly to a secondary education program. In many northern andrural communities, one school building may house all levels, from kindergarten toGrade 11 or 12.

A great variety of programs—vocational (job training) as well as academic—isoffered at the secondary level. Some jurisdictions offer dual credit courses thatsimultaneously give students both high school and postsecondary credits.

Secondary school diplomas are granted to students who pass the compulsoryand optional courses of their programs.

Public funding at the pre-elementary and elementary-secondary levels comeseither directly from the provincial/territorial government or through a mix of provincialtransfers and local taxes collected either by the local government or by school boardswith taxing powers. Private school funding comes primarily from fees and endowments,except in Quebec, which also provides funds for private schools (which have discretionover admission criteria). Manitoba also provides some provincial funding to privateschools that meet specified provincial requirements. The federal government pays forthe tuition fees of Aboriginal children and for children of employees who live onFederal Crown lands (National Defence, Agriculture and Transport).

Appendix

147

1



Once secondary school has been successfully completed, students may apply to acollege career program or to a university. Traditionally, enrolment in trade-vocationalprograms, such as apprenticeship or other programs geared towards preparation foremployment in an occupation or trade, did not require graduation from secondaryschool. However, requirements are evolving so that more and more programs, especiallyin trades dealing with advanced technology or having implications for public safety,are now requiring high school graduation.

Apprenticeship training involves a contract between an apprentice and anemployer, registered with the jurisdiction, in which the employer provides theapprentice with training and experience for a trade. Programs vary in length fromtwo to five years, depending on the trade. Registered apprenticeship combines on-the-job experience with four- to eight-week periods of in-class training each year ofthe program. In most jurisdictions the in-class portion is usually taken at apostsecondary institution during the apprenticeship training. However, in Quebec,the in-class training is taken prior to beginning an apprenticeship program.

Currently there are approximately 170 registered trades in Canada, each withspecific standards and training requirements as set down by each jurisdiction. In someof these trades, apprenticeship certification is compulsory for entry into and practiceof the trade, while in others, although it indicates the holder’s level of competence,apprenticeship certification is voluntary and one can practise the trade without it.Compulsory and voluntary trades vary by jurisdiction; however, there are similaritiesacross jurisdictions in that compulsory trades commonly include those with advancedtechnology or that involve public safety. In 45 of the 170 registered trades, the provincesand territories have agreed on interprovincial standards. In these 45 trades, candidateswho achieve a standard agreed upon among the provinces qualify for the interprovincialRed Seal and are allowed to work anywhere in Canada without further training orexamination.

In this publication, data relating to trade-vocational programs in Quebec thatare administered at the elementary-secondary level are reported at that level.

Postsecondary education is available in both government-supported and privateinstitutions, some of which award degrees. A major distinction at an institutionallevel across all jurisdictions is made between “degree-granting” and “non-degree-granting” institutions. Degree-granting institutions—both public and private—haveauthority under provincial legislation to grant degrees, and include universities,university colleges, and some community colleges.

Universities typically offer four-year undergraduate programs leading tobachelor’s degrees. Advanced degrees include master’s degrees, generally requiringtwo years of study after a first degree, and doctoral degrees, requiring three to fiveyears of postgraduate study and research as well as a dissertation. Not all universitiesoffer advanced degrees, particularly at the doctoral level. In addition to universities,university colleges are recognized degree-granting institutions that offer three- tofour-year bachelor’s programs. Both universities and university colleges also offerprograms leading to diplomas and certificates, but the primary emphasis is on degreeprograms. Additionally, a number of jurisdictions have begun to give limited degree-granting authority to community colleges. These institutions still offer diploma andcertificate programs. The degree programs offered by these institutions are eithertwo-year associate degrees or three- to four-year applied degrees in a particular areaof specialty of the institution.


148

1


A university or other institution may also be affiliated or federated with anotheruniversity. Federated institutions are degree-granting institutions responsible for theirown administration, but under the federation agreement the granting of degrees restswith the parent institution. Affiliated institutions are ones with limited or no degree-granting authority, and in which the granting of degrees rests with the parentinstitution. A number of colleges have authority to offer divinity degrees, but are notin the full sense recognized degree-granting institutions.

While the majority of degree-granting institutions are public, private institutionsexist in a number of provinces. For many years, there have been private institutionsthat offer programs in divinity. Increasingly, there are private institutions that offerdegree programs in liberal arts, business, and trades.

The systems of public non-degree-granting institutions in Canada for the mostpart were created by provincial and territorial governments in the 1960s to providelabour market preparation programs as alternatives to the more theoretically orientedprograms of universities. Depending on the province or territory, they are calledcolleges, regional colleges, centres, colleges of applied arts and technology, communitycolleges, institutes, schools, or, in Quebec, collèges d’enseignement général etprofessionnel (CEGEPs).

Public non-degree-granting institutions offer vocationally oriented programsin a wide range of semi-professional and technical fields, leading to diplomas andcertificates and, in the case of Quebec, to diplomas and attestations. Diplomas aregenerally granted for successful completion of two- and three-year programs (three-year programs in Quebec), while certificate programs usually take up to one year. InQuebec, attestations are awarded for the completion of shorter technical programs,and are generally viewed as the equivalent to certificates awarded in other jurisdictions.

In Quebec, students wishing to go on to university are generally required tosuccessfully complete a two-year pre-university program offered by CEGEPs. In somecircumstances, students with a technical-stream CEGEP diploma of college studiesmay undertake university studies.

Several college systems offer university transfer programs—typically the firsttwo years of a university undergraduate program, usually in cooperation with auniversity, at which the remainder of the program would be completed.

Private non-degree-granting institutions are subject to varying degrees ofgovernment regulation and can be classified in terms of the extent of governmentoversight. Recognized institutions are those that have been given authority to grantacademic credentials by provincial or territorial governments through charters orlegislation that provide mechanisms to ensure institutional and program quality. Non-recognized, but licensed, institutions are primarily monitored by governments with aview to consumer protection rather than institutional or program quality. Finally,non-recognized, non-licensed institutions are private institutions that are not regulatedby government.

Private non-degree-granting institutions may be called colleges, institutes,schools, or academies depending on the jurisdiction. Credentials issued includediplomas and certificates, with a tendency for programs to be much shorter and moreintensive than programs in public institutions. In Quebec, private subsidizedinstitutions may also offer two-year pre-university programs and three-year technicalprograms.

Appendix

149

1


The source of funds at the postsecondary level will depend on the nature of theinstitution. For universities and public non-degree granting institutions, public fundingcomes directly from the provincial/territorial government (mostly in the form ofoperating and capital grants) and from the federal government (mostly for sponsoredresearch). Private funding for those institutions is made up of tuition and other fees,donations (including bequests), investment, and non-government grants and contracts.Private non-degree-granting institutions receive very little or no public funding, exceptindirectly through support to students; funding for these private institutions comesmostly from tuition fees.

For a more detailed overview of postsecondary systems in Canada, see theWeb site of the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials athttp://www.cicic.ca/postsec/vol1.overview.en.stm.


150

1



Prince Edward Island1

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick – English

New Brunswick – French

Quebec – General

Quebec – Vocational

Ontario2

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Yukon


Nunavut

Pre-elementary, not universally availablePre-elementary, universally availableElementary/PrimaryJunior high/MiddleSenior highSecondary

1. Prince Edward Island introduced its pre-elementary program in 2000-2001.2. 2002-2003 was the last year for the Ontario Academic Course (13th year of high-school).

10 11 12 13

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P P P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P P P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P

P

P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 1

Levels within pre-elementary and elementary-secondary schools, by jurisdiction

P P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Appendices


Glossary

AAboriginal ancestry/origin:

Refers to those persons who reported at least one Aboriginal origin (North AmericanIndian, Métis or Inuit) in response to the Census of Population question on ethnicorigin. The question asks about the ethnic or cultural group(s) to which therespondent’s ancestors belong.

Aboriginal identity:

Refers to those persons who, on the Census of Population, reported identifying withat least one Aboriginal group (North American Indian, Métis or Inuit). Also includedare individuals who did not report an Aboriginal identity, but did report being aRegistered or Treaty Indian, and/or Band or First Nation membership (“not includedelsewhere” category). Registered Indian status refers to those who reported they wereregistered under the Indian Act of Canada. Treaty Indians are persons who areregistered under the Indian Act of Canada and can prove descent from a Band thatsigned a treaty. The term “treaty Indian” is more widely used in the Prairie provinces.

Aboriginal population:

The Aboriginal population in Canada is not a homogeneous group and there is nosingle or “correct” definition; the choice of a definition depends on the purpose forwhich it is to be used. The Census of Population collects information on four concepts:ethnic origin (or ancestry), Aboriginal identity, Registered Indian status, and Bandmembership.

Academic rank:

This refers to a classification of university teaching staff according to level of academicappointment. Generally, the ranking consists of “full professor” at the top, followedby “associate professor”. The “other” category refers to assistant professors, lecturers,and instructors.

After-typical-age graduation rate:

At the secondary school level, the after-typical-age graduation rate is calculated byrelating the number of graduates whose age is greater than the typical age of graduationto the population at the typical age of graduation. The typical age of graduation is

Appendix 2


152

2


the age at which persons complete high school if they start at the prescribed age andexperience no repetition or interruption in their schooling. The typical age ofgraduation is 18 for all jurisdictions except Quebec, where it is 17.

BBirth rate:

Number of births per 1,000 population.

CCapital expenditure:

Expenditures used to purchase assets intended to last longer than one year. It is also ameasure of the value of capital acquired during the year in question. These expendituresinclude spending for the construction, renovation or major repair of buildings and toreplace or purchase new equipment.

Career technical programs (by registration status):

These programs, which are offered at community colleges, prepare students to enteroccupations at a level between that of the university-trained professional and theskilled tradesperson. Secondary school completion or equivalent is a normalprerequisite for entry. These programs require at least one school year of 24 weeks ormore for completion. Most take two or three years and some take longer. One-yearprograms lead to a certificate and the longer ones lead to a diploma.

Full-time/part-time: A classification of enrolment as either full time or part timeis made according to institutional definitions. Since standard pan-Canadiandefinitions of full-time and part-time enrolment do not exist, it can be expectedthat the definitions used by institutions will vary somewhat.

CEGEP:

CEGEP is a French acronym for “Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel.”These institutions are at the postsecondary level (students enter CEGEP aftercompleting six years of elementary school and five years of secondary school) andoffer two-year pre-university programs and three-year technical programs leading toa Diploma of College Studies (DCS) as well as shorter technical programs leading toan Attestation of College Studies (ACS). A Diploma of College Studies (DCS) isrequired for admission to university. Pre-university programs lead to university, whereastechnical programs generally lead to the labour market, but can, under certainconditions, also lead to university.

Census metropolitan area (CMA):

A census geographical unit consisting of one or more adjacent municipalities centeredon a large urban area (known as the urban core). The census population count of theurban core is at least 100,000 to form a census metropolitan area (CMA). To beincluded in the CMA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree ofintegration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derivedfrom census place of work data. Once an area becomes a CMA, it is retained as aCMA even if the population of its urban core declines below 100,000.

Appendix

153

2


Coefficient of variation (CV):

Coefficients of variation (CV) provide a measure of the reliability of the estimate,taking into account sampling variability. In order to estimate whether the differencebetween two values is statistically significant, the following formula can be applied toapproximate a 95% confidence interval:

Y ± 2 (CV x Y)/100, where Y is the estimate

This approximate confidence interval gives a range within which the truevalue in the population is likely to fall. If two confidence intervals do not overlap,then the difference between the two estimates is statistically significant. It should benoted that this formula is approximate because it estimates a confidence interval thatis slightly higher than the 95% level of confidence.

College:

Refers to community colleges, CEGEPs, technical institutes, hospital and regionalschools of nursing, and establishments providing technological training in specializedfields. In counting the number of institutions, hospital schools of radiography, medicaltechnology and health records are included.

College diplomas and certificates (as presented in Tables D.2.3 and D.2.4):

Includes diplomas and certificates awarded by postsecondary non-universityinstitutions in career-technical and university transfer and university college programs,as well as those awarded by radiography, medical technology, health records andregistered nursing programs in hospital schools.

Common-law:

Refers to two people of the opposite sex or of the same sex who live together as acouple, but who are not legally married to each other.

Constant dollars:

Constant dollars are derived by applying a price deflator to convert expendituresdisplayed in a time series to a price level that existed at a certain point in time (thebase year) (see “Basic reference statistics,” Appendix 3, 2007 PCEIP Handbook).Constant dollars eliminate the changes in the purchasing power of the dollar overtime. The result is a series as it would exist if the dollar had a purchasing power equalto the purchasing power in the base year.

EEarnings or employment income:

Refers to total income received as wages and salaries, net income from a non-farmunincorporated business and/or professional practice, and/or net farm self-employmentincome.

Educational attainment:

Measures an individual’s highest level of completed schooling, and is sometimes usedas a proxy measure of human capital. Levels of educational attainment derived fromthe Census of Population are as follows:


154

2


Less than high school: persons who did not graduate from high school.

High school: high school graduates with no further education, or with somepostsecondary education, but with no degree, certificate or diploma.

Trade-vocational: persons with a trades certificate or diploma from a vocationalor apprenticeship training.

College: persons with non-university certificate or diploma from a communitycollege, CEGEP, school of nursing.

University: persons with a bachelors degree, university degree or certificate abovebachelors, or certificate below bachelors degree.

Elementary schools:

Schools are classified as elementary if they provide Grade 6 and under or a majorityof elementary grades.

Elementary-secondary educators:

Includes all employees in the public elementary-secondary school system (eitherschool-based or school district-based) who are required to have teaching certificationas a condition of their employment. Generally includes teaching staff, principals, vice-principal, and professional non-teaching staff such as pedagogical consultants, guidancecounsellors and special education teachers. It includes all educators in regular publicschools, provincial reformatory or custodial schools, and of other students recognizedand funded by a province or territory (correspondence or distance programs, privateschools or independent schools financed by federal departments such as theDepartment of National Defence and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairsare excluded). Substitute/Supply teachers, temporary replacement teachers, teacherson leave, student assistants and teaching assistants are excluded. All teachers in regularprograms for youth, adult upgrading programs and vocational programs for youthand adults are considered in this definition.

Elementary-secondary enrolment:

Number of students (headcount) enrolled in public elementary-secondary schoolsoperated by school boards or the province in September (or as close as possiblethereafter) of the school year. It includes all students in regular public schools (gradedand ungraded), provincial reformatory or custodial schools, and other studentsrecognized and funded by a province or territory. It also includes other non-standardenrolment including students receiving educational services (if recognized by theprovince) and for schools and/or school districts that receive funding in a uniquemanner. They may be non-graduates who are taking only a few courses required tocomplete graduation. For example, a student who is enrolled in only 25% of a “regular”course load and for whom the school or school district receives only 25% of the usualfunding. This category may not apply to some provinces or territories. It excludescorrespondence or distance education enrolments, private school students, independentschool students or students in schools financed by federal departments (e.g., theDepartment of National Defence and the Department of Indian and NorthernAffairs).

Elementary-secondary schools:

Schools are classified as elementary is they provide Grade 6 and under or a majorityof elementary grades, and secondary if they offer Grade 7 and over or a majority ofsecondary grades.

Appendix

155

2


Employment rate:

The number of employed persons as a percentage of the population 15 years of ageand older. Employed persons are those who, during the Labour Force Survey referenceweek did any work for pay or profit, or had a job and were absent from work.

Expenditures on research and development (R&D):

Total research and development (R&D) expenditures performed in a country’s nationalterritory during a given year. Total research and development expenditures includeR&D performed within a country and funded from all sources, including governments,business enterprises, non-profit organizations, higher education institutions andforeign sources, but exclude payments sent abroad for R&D performed in othercountries. Total expenditures on R&D represent the aggregate of the total R&Dexpenditures of the performing sectors (government, business enterprise, highereducation, and private non-profit organizations). The definition of (total) expenditureson research and development in a provincial context is similar; expenditures areassigned to the province in which the performing establishment is located.

FFederal schools:

Include schools administered directly by the federal government, overseas schoolsoperated by the Department of National Defence for dependants of Canadian Forcespersonnel, and schools operated by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or by bandcouncils.

Fertility rate:

Number of births per woman.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) elementary-secondary educator:

The number of full-time elementary-secondary educators on September 30th (or asclose as possible thereafter) of the school year, plus the sum of part-time educatorsaccording to their percentage of a full-time employment allocation (determined bythe province or territory).

Full-time equivalent (FTE) enrolment:

Represents full-time elementary-secondary enrolments on September 30th (or as closeas possible thereafter) of the school year, plus the sum of part-time enrolmentsaccording to their percentage of a full-time enrolment allocation (determined by theprovince or territory).

Full-time university educators:

Full-time teaching staff in degree-granting institutions who have a teachingassignment and are under contract for 12 months or more. Administrative and supportstaff are excluded, as are staff solely engaged in research. Teaching and researchassistants are also excluded.


156

2


GG-7/G-8:

A group of the leading seven industrialized countries: Canada, France, Germany,Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. The group remained at sevenuntil the Russian Federation, which had attended G-7 meetings as an observerthroughout the 1990s, was invited to formalize this relationship in 1997 (hence thegroup became the G-8).

Gender gap (salary):

The average salary of females as a percentage of the average salary of males.

Government student loan programs:

Programs under which provincial and federal governments provide loans to Canadiansenrolled in full- or part-time postsecondary education, based on eligibility and need.

Graduates:

Postsecondary level: Students who completed the requirements for degrees,diplomas or certificates from university, college or other postsecondary programsduring the calendar year of their graduation. Only graduates from publicpostsecondary institutions are included.

Secondary school: Students who obtain a secondary school graduation certificate.Does not include people who complete high school outside the regular secondaryschool systems. Data on graduations from some secondary programs are notuniformly available across jurisdictions, and general education diplomas (GED),adult basic upgrading and education, and graduation from adult day school, whichtake place outside regular secondary school programs, are in most instances notincluded. (See the 2007 PCEIP Handbook for a discussion of the differencesbetween graduation rates calculated from administrative data and populationsurveys.)

Graduate enrolment (by registration status):

This includes university students in master’s and doctoral degree programs or ingraduate diploma and certificate programs. Also includes hospital residents, and since1980, interns.

Full-time/Part-time enrolment: A classification of enrolment as either full-timeor part-time is made according to institutional definitions. Since standard pan-Canadian definitions of full-time and part-time enrolment do not exist, it can beexpected that the definitions used by institutions will vary somewhat.

Graduation rates:

For college and university programs, graduation rates have been calculated by dividingthe total number of graduates by the population at the “typical” age of graduation.The typical ages at graduation that have been used in this publication are:

• College: 21

• Bachelor’s and first professional degrees: 22

• Master’s degrees: 24

• Earned doctorate degrees: 27

Appendix

157

2


This measure should not be confused with a graduation rate that shows graduates asa proportion of enrolment, which is not used in this report.

At the elementary-secondary level, graduation rates are calculated by relatingthe number of graduates of all ages to the population at the typical age of graduation,where the typical age of graduation is the age at which persons complete high schoolif they start at the prescribed age and experience no repetition or interruption in theirschooling. The typical age of graduation is 18 for all jurisdictions except Quebec,where it is 17. (See also “After-typical-age-graduation rate”.)

Gross domestic product (GDP):

Represents the total market value of a country’s (or province/territory’s) goods andservices produced over the year.

HHigh school status:

• High school continuers: Respondents who were continuing their studies at ahigh school institution and who had not yet graduated as of the reference date.

• High school graduates: Respondents who have completed the minimumrequirements for a high school graduation certificate, diploma or equivalent areconsidered to have graduated.

• High school dropouts: Respondents who had not completed the high schoolgraduation requirements, and were not attending high school as of the referencedate.

Home language:

Refers to the language spoken most often, or on a regular basis, at home by theindividual at the time of the census. In this report data are presented for persons ofschool age for whom the home language is neither English nor French.

Household:

Refers to a person or a group of persons (other than foreign residents) who occupy aprivate dwelling and do not have a usual place of residence elsewhere in Canada.

Human capital:

The knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals thatfacilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being (this definition hasbeen developed by the OECD and used for the purposes of this report).

IImmigrants:

Refers to people who are, or have been, landed immigrants in Canada. A landedimmigrant is a person who has been granted the right to live in Canada permanentlyby immigration authorities. Some immigrants have resided in Canada for a numberof years, while others have arrived recently. Does not include non-permanent residentswho are defined as people from another country who had an employmentauthorization, a study authorization, or a Minister’s permit, or who were refugeeclaimants at the time of the census and family members living here with them.


158

2


Index:

Annual cumulative percentage changes in a variable from a given base year, expressedas an index with the base year equal to 100. An index value of 140, for example, 10years after the base year, would indicate a 40% increase in the variable over that timeperiod.

Indirect costs of research:

Those costs that are incurred by an institution by virtue of the fact that researchersconduct sponsored or intramural research with the support of the institution. Theyare expenditures that cannot be identified readily and specifically with a particularproject, instructional or other activity of the institution. Examples include the costsof the office of research or intellectual property management services, departmentaladministration, utilities, physical plant operation and maintenance, library, laboratoryfurniture and permanent equipment.

Inuit:

Broadly refers to people who are descendants of Aboriginal people who historicallyinhabited the Arctic regions of Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and Russia, and whoself-identify as such.

LLabour force:

The portion of the civilian, non-institutional population 15 years of age and overwho form the pool of available workers in Canada. To be considered a member of thelabour force, an individual must be working (either full-time or part-time) orunemployed but actively looking for work.

Labour force participation rate:

The participation rate represents the labour force expressed as a percentage of thepopulation 15 years of age and over.

Literacy, IALSS:

The 2003 International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALSS) assessed adultliteracy across four domains:

Prose literacy is the knowledge and skills needed to understand and use informationfrom texts including editorials, news stories, brochures and instruction manuals.

Document literacy refers to the knowledge and skills required to locate and useinformation contained in various formats, including job applications, payroll forms,transportation schedules, maps, tables and charts.

Numeracy is the knowledge and skills needed to effectively manage themathematical demands of diverse situations.

Problem solving is the goal-directed thinking and action in situations for whichno routine solutions exist. The problem solver has a more or less well definedgoal, but it is not immediately obvious how to reach it. The incongruence of goalsand admissible operators constitutes a problem. The understanding of the problemsituation and its step-by-step transformation, based on planning and reasoning,constitute the process of problem solving.

Appendix

159

2


Literacy, PISA:

The OECD initiated the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)to provide policy-oriented international indicators of the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. PISA assesses youth in three domains: reading literacy, mathematicalliteracy, and scientific literacy. These domains are defined in PISA as:

Reading literacy is the ability to understand, use, and reflect on written texts, inorder to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and toparticipate in society.

Mathematical literacy is the capacity to identify, understand and engage inmathematics, and to make well-founded judgments about the role thatmathematics plays in an individual’s current and future private life, occupationallife, social life with peers and relatives, and as a constructive, concerned andreflective citizen.

Scientific literacy is defined as the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identifyquestions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand andhelp make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it throughhuman activity.

Living arrangements:

Cohabitation status or household composition of the school-age population. Forinstance: living with parent(s), with the sub-categories of married parents, common-law parents and lone parent; as well as not living with parent(s), including the sub-categories of living as a spouse, living as a lone parent, and other living arrangements.

Lone parent:

Guardians and adults, regardless of marital status, without a partner but with childrenin their care.

Low income:

The income level, conveyed by Statistics Canada’s low-income cutoffs (LICOs), atwhich a family may be in “straitened circumstances” because it has to spend significantlymore of its income on the basics (food, shelter and clothing), than does the averagefamily. The LICOs depend on family and community size.

Low-income cutoffs (LICOs): Low-income cutoffs (LICOs):

Represent an income threshold where a family is likely to spend 20% more of itsincome on food, shelter and clothing than the average family, leaving less incomeavailable for other expenses such as health, education, transportation and recreation.LICOs are calculated for families and communities of different sizes.

MMedium-growth scenario, Aboriginal population:

Assumes that fertility and mortality will be declining, that migration trends willcontinue their course as observed during the second half of the 1990s, and that fertilitywill undergo a slow decline over the projected period.


160

2


Medium-growth scenario, total Canadian population:

Assumes that fertility and immigration remain at their current levels throughout theprojection period. It also assumes that Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia gainpopulation through interjurisdictional migrations and that all other jurisdictions losepopulation through interjurisdictional migrations.

Métis:

Broadly refers to people who are of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestryand who self-identify as Métis.

Migration rate:

The rate of out- (in-) migration to study is defined as the number of graduates wholeft (entered) a jurisdiction to pursue their studies, as a percentage of the number ofgraduates by jurisdiction of residence prior to enrolment. Used as a measure of “studentmobility”. The rate of out- (in-) migration after graduation is defined as the numberof graduates who left (entered) a jurisdiction two years after graduation, as a percentageof the number of graduates of the jurisdiction. Used as a measure of “graduate mobility”.

NNorth American Indian:

This term is used for those persons who self-identify North American Indian, andbroadly refers to people who consider themselves as part of the First Nations inCanada, whether or not they have legal Indian status according to the Indian Act ofCanada.

Not in the labour force:

Persons not in the labour force are those who, during the Labour Force Survey referenceweek, were unwilling or unable to offer or supply labour services under conditionsexisting in their labour markets; that is, they were neither employed nor unemployed.

OOperating expenditures:

Expenditures which an institution purchases and consumes within a year and whichthe institution purchases on an ongoing basis. Examples of operating expendituresinclude costs directly attributable to instruction such as salaries, instructional aids,administrative support, teacher development, and costs for other educators such ascounsellors. In this report, operating expenditures are categorized further into:

Compensation of staff (educators and other staff ): Expenditure on compensationof staff includes gross salaries (before deduction of taxes, contributions forretirement or health care plans, and other contributions or premiums for socialinsurance or other purposes), plus expenditure on retirement (actual or imputedexpenditure by employers or third parties to finance retirement benefits for currenteducational personnel) and other non-salary compensation (fringe benefits).

Statistics on compensation of university staff are categorized as follows: academicsalaries paid to full- and part-time staff members engaged in instruction andresearch activities; other salaries and wages paid to other full- and part-time staff;and benefits such as pensions, group life insurance, medical and dental plans andother employee benefit plans.

Appendix

161

2


Other operating expenditures: Covers all non-salary related items such as spendingon tuition fees and books, spending attributable to research and development,utilities, school services under contract, building operations and maintenance staffand so on. Other non-salary costs include those related to the maintenance ofbuildings as well as supplementary costs such as lunch programs and transportation.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):

A multidisciplinary international body made up of 30 member countries that offers astructure/forum for governments to consult and co-operate with each other in orderto develop and refine economic and social policy. While the OECD does not setrules and regulations to settle disputes like other international bodies, it encouragesthe negotiation of agreements and the promotion of legal codes in certain sectors. Itswork can lead to binding and non-binding agreements between the member countriesto act in a formal way. The OECD is best known for its publications and statistics.Its 30 member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom,United States.

PParticipation rates in education:

This is calculated by taking the total enrolment of a particular level of education as apercentage of a specified population group.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R):

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) is administered to 4- and5-year-olds. This test measures children’s receptive language skills or the verbalcomponent of intelligence. It is a “normed” test; that is, participants’ performancesare reported and scored relative to that of an overall population. A wide range ofscores represents an average level of ability, taking the age of the child intoconsideration. Scores below the lower threshold of this range reflect a delayed receptivevocabulary, and scores above the higher threshold demonstrate an advanced receptivevocabulary.

The PPVT-R is scaled to an average of 100. The range of average receptivevocabulary measured by the PPVT-R covers scores from 85 to 115. A score below 85is considered a delayed score, and a score above 115 is considered an advanced score.Scoring is adjusted to reflect different abilities of 4- and 5-year-olds.

Per capita expenditure:

This measure divides the spending on education in Canada, or in a province or territory,by the total population, to show how much is spent on education per person.

Postsecondary education status:

Refers to a youth’s overall postsecondary status.

Postsecondary graduates: Respondents who have graduated from a postsecondaryinstitution (i.e., respondents who have completed the graduation requirementstowards a diploma, certificate or degree) and includes both graduate continuersand graduate non-continuers.


162

2


Postsecondary graduate continuer: Someone who has already graduated from apostsecondary institution and is attending an additional postsecondary programas of the reference date.

Postsecondary graduate non-continuer: Someone who has graduated from apostsecondary institution and is not pursuing additional education in apostsecondary institution as of the reference date.

Postsecondary continuers: Someone who is attending a postsecondary educationinstitution but has not yet graduated as of the reference date.

Postsecondary dropouts: Someone who has attended postsecondary educationbut is no longer pursuing it and has never graduated from a postsecondaryeducation institution as of the reference date.

High school dropout, no postsecondary education: Refers to someone who hasdropped out of high school and has never attended postsecondary education as ofthe reference date.

High school graduate, no postsecondary education: Refers to someone who is ahigh school graduate and has never attempted postsecondary education as of thereference date.

Pre-elementary programs:

Pre-Grade 1 programs offered by public, private and federal schools, as well as schoolsfor the visually and hearing impaired, generally targeting children 4 or 5 years of age.Junior and senior kindergarten programs in the formal education system are included,but early childhood education programs outside the formal education system are notincluded.

Private business colleges:

Private schools, licensed or not by a jurisdiction, providing professional and vocationaltraining for profit.

Private expenditures:

Expenditures on education by households or other private entities (commercial andnot-for-profit) consisting of:

• Fees paid to educational institutions (e.g., for tuition, registration, laboratory,lodging, meals and for other services provided to students by the institution).Note that Statistics Canada surveys only institutions and, therefore, costs for off-campus housing not provided by the institution are not included in the totalamount spent.

• Financial aid to students or households coming from private sources (e.g.,scholarships from business firms and religious and other non-profit organizations).

• Direct payments by private entities to educational institutions (e.g., contributionsor subsidies to vocational-technical schools, contracts let to universities for researchor other services, grants to educational institutions from non-profit organizations,charitable donations [other than from households], expenditures by privateemployers for apprenticeship training and other school and work-based educationalprograms).

Private schools:

Operated and administered by individuals or groups. They may be eitherdenominational or non-denominational.

Appendix

163

2


Private revenues at universities:

Revenue obtained from any source other than government, categorized as:

Student fees: Payments obtained from students directly in the form of tuitionand other fees.

Non-government grants and contracts, donations and bequests: Financial supportreceived by colleges and universities from donors, wills from grants and contractsfrom sources other than government, the latter provided with specific stipulations.

Sales: Revenue from sales of services and products by the institution.

Investment: Revenue from dividends, bonds, mortgages, short-term notes andbank interest.

Miscellaneous revenue of colleges and universities: Commissions, royalties andfees from the use of institution-owned rights or properties, fees for servicesrendered, library and other similar fines, rentals, net gain or loss on the sale offixed assets and any type of revenue not identified under other forms of revenue.

Public college and institute enrolment (by registration status

Includes enrolment in publicly funded colleges and institutes only. Colleges andinstitutes are institutions created under the authority either of a province’s CollegesAct or equivalent, or under a Societies Act or equivalent with education as a primarypurpose. These institutions are created primarily to offer certificate, diploma, andtransfer or continuing education and professional development programs three yearsor less in length. They generally require high school completion for admissions.

Full-time/Part-time: Full-time/Part-time status is defined by the reporting bythe reporting postsecondary institution.

Public expenditures:

Refer to total operating and capital expenditures at all levels of government. Publicexpenditures include:

• Direct purchases by governments of educational resources (e.g., direct paymentsof teachers’ salaries by a central or regional education ministry, direct paymentsby a municipality to building contractors for construction of school buildings,procurement of textbooks by a jurisdiction or regional authority for subsequentdistribution to local authorities or schools).

• Direct payments by government agencies to educational institutions that havethe responsibility of purchasing educational resources themselves (e.g., governmentblock grants to universities which they use to compensate personnel, a governmentsubsidy to a private school, and government payments under contract to a privatefirm undertaking educational research).

• Direct expenditures designated for capital projects (e.g., building expansions orconstruction, laboratory equipment in support of research and development).

• Public to private transfers (e.g., financial aid in the form of government scholarshipsand grants, special public subsidies [such as for transport, medical expenses, studiesabroad], family allowances or child allowances that are contingent on studentstatus, student loans).

Note that public expenditures on education as presented in Table B.2.1 are notconsistent with this definition as they are derived from a different data source inorder to permit comparisons of spending across governmental programs. (See the2007 PCEIP Handbook for more details.)


164

2


Public schools:

Established and operated by local school authorities pursuant to the public schoolslegislation of the province or territory. Also included in this category are Protestantand Roman Catholic separate schools and schools operated in Canada by NationalDefence within the framework of the public schools system.

RReal dollars:

A dollar estimate of the volume of activity obtained by applying the growth in avolume index to the value of a specific series for a given reference period.

Receptive vocabulary:

Receptive vocabulary refers to the understood vocabulary of the child; that is, thenumber of words a child understands when he or she hears them spoken. A child’s(or adult’s) understood vocabulary level is measured relative to other individuals ofthe same age. In the NLSCY, receptive or understood vocabulary level is measuredusing the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised.

Registered apprentices:

Based on data provided by provincial/territorial apprenticeship branches and includeall individuals registered in an apprenticeship program, regardless of whether or notthey had been enrolled in any formal classroom training during the year. Theapprenticeship program can be either Red Seal or non-Red Seal and can be eithercompulsory or voluntary.

Registered apprenticeship completions:

Refers to those who received a Red Seal or provincial certificate for completing boththe in-class and on-the-job training required by apprenticeship programs. The RedSeal or Interprovincial Standards Program was introduced in the late 1950s to makeit easier for skilled workers to move across Canada without having to re-qualify in atrade when entering employment in a new province. By comparison, a provincialcertificate is valid only for the province in which it is issued. The Red Seal is availablein 45 trades at this time, in trades such as cabinet maker, machinist, motor vehiclebody repair, roofer, bricklayer and welder.

Registered apprenticeship programs:

A program based on a contract registered with the province/territory, between theapprentice and the employer, in which the employer agrees to provide an opportunityto obtain the experience and skill required for a trade. Programs vary in length fromtwo to five years, depending on the trade. Registered apprenticeship combines on-the-job experience with four- to eight-week periods of in-class training. In mostjurisdictions, the in-class portion is usually taken at a postsecondary institution duringthe apprenticeship training. In Quebec, however, the in-class training is taken priorto beginning the apprenticeship program. Depending on the jurisdiction and trade,graduates of apprenticeship programs can receive both a Certificate of Apprenticeshipand a Certificate of Qualification.

Appendix

165

2


Research and development (R&D):

Creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock ofscientific and technical knowledge and to use this knowledge in new applications.The central characteristic of R&D is an appreciable element of novelty and ofuncertainty. New knowledge, products or processes are sought. The work is normallyperformed by, or under the supervision of, persons with postgraduate degrees.

SSchool-age population:

Comprises all individuals between the ages of 5 and 24, whether or not they are inschool. This is the age range at which most people undertake their formal education.

Schools for the visually or hearing impaired:

Provide special facilities and training for visually or hearing impaired students. Mostof these institutions are under direct provincial or territorial governmentadministration.

Secondary schools:

Include public, private and federal schools, and schools for the visually and hearingimpaired. Schools are classified as secondary if they offer either Grade 7 and over, ora majority of years at the secondary level.

Sources of funds for university R&D:

Federal government: Through the Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council(SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the CanadaFoundation for Innovation and federal departments and agencies.

Provincial governments: Including municipal governments.

Business enterprises: Including donations, bequests and contracts from individualsand businesses.

Private non-profit organizations: Including donations, bequests, and contractsfrom foundations and not-for-profit organizations.

Foreign sources: Funding entities located abroad.

Universities: Universities fund their own R&D using two revenue streams:

General university funds: These represent government transfers (or block grants)to universities that are used to support R&D activity. Although in essence thesefunds represent indirect government spending on R&D, for the purposes of pan-Canadian statistics they are allocated to university funding due to the difficultyof categorizing these funds as provincial or federal. However in internationalcomparisons, these funds are included as indirect government funding at the overallgovernment level.

Own revenue sources: This refers to self-generated revenue of universities fromsources such as tuition fees, investment income, revenue from sales of servicesand products by the institution and license and patent incomes.


166

2


Sponsorship of university R&D:

Refers to university research that is supported either in the form of a grant or bymeans of a contract from a source external to the institution. Funding sources includegovernment, business enterprises, and donors.

Student–computer ratio:

Total number of students enrolled in a school divided by the total number of computersin the school. This report uses data on this measure from PISA which in turn reportsthis ratio for schools in which 15-year-olds are enrolled.

Student–educator ratio:

The student–educator ratio is a measure of the human resources available to studentsin public elementary and secondary schools. It is calculated by dividing the numberof full-time equivalent enrolments by the number of full-time equivalent educators.

TTotal expenditures:

Combined public and private expenditures on education.

Trades:

There are approximately 170 registered trades in Canada, each with specific standardsand training requirements as set down by each province and territory. Provincesdesignate each trade as “compulsory” or “voluntary”. In order to work in a compulsorytrade an individual must either be registered as an apprentice or have the propercertification through completion of apprenticeship training. Voluntary trades alsohave apprenticeship programs, but registration as an apprentice or certification is notmandatory in order to work in the trade.

Trade-vocational programs:

Trade-vocational programs at community colleges and similar institutions are thosethat do not require secondary school completion and do not include continuingeducation or general interest programs. They include the following programs:

Pre-employment/pre-apprenticeship programs: Provide basic training in aparticular trade, offering entry-level skills for employment. These programs alsooffer the knowledge and skills required to enter an apprenticeship program.

Registered apprenticeship programs: A program based on a contract registeredwith the province/territory, between the apprentice and the employer, in whichthe employer agrees to provide an opportunity to obtain the experience and skillrequired for a trade. Programs vary in length from two to five years, depending onthe trade. Registered apprenticeship combines on-the-job experience with six- toeight-week periods of in-class training. In most jurisdictions, the in-class portionis usually taken at a postsecondary institution during the apprenticeship training.In Quebec, however, the in-class training is taken prior to beginning theapprenticeship program. Depending on the jurisdiction and trade, graduates ofapprenticeship programs can receive both a Certificate of Apprenticeship and aCertificate of Qualification.

Appendix

167

2


Pre-vocational academic upgrading or basic training for skill development(BTSD programs): Designed to help individuals obtain or upgrade prerequisitesin basic education to qualify for further training or employment. They are aimedat improving the students’ knowledge in the basic subjects of mathematics, Englishor French, and the general sciences.

Pre-vocational language programs: These programs offer a basic knowledge ofEnglish or French. As second language programs, they are primarily aimed atrecent immigrants and others whose first language is neither English nor French.

Skill upgrading or refresher programs: Designed to instruct students in newoccupational methods and techniques. Students in these programs have priortraining and work experience in their occupation, but require further training, inorder that they may keep pace with rapid changes in their field often brought onby new technology.

Job readiness training ( JRT): Designed to increase the employability of studentswanting to enter or re-enter the labour force. The program assists students byproviding them with career exploration, job search, life skills and basic academictraining.

Orientation programs: Designed to guide students into trade or vocationaloccupations and provide them with job search skills. These programs are notdesigned to teach the skills necessary for specific employment but to provide thestudent with sufficient knowledge to pursue an occupation. Programs included inthis category are career exploration, employment orientation for women,introduction to non-traditional occupations, industrial orientation.

Special training and other programs: Includes training programs designed forthe specific needs of particular groups, industries or communities. These programsoffer classroom or on-the-job training, as well as both in combination, to counterskill shortages in the labour market. Also included in this group are trade-vocational and preparatory programs that do not fall into any other major categorytype.

Tuition fees, undergraduate university:

Undergraduate tuition fees charged to full-time Canadian students over the academicyear; that is, September to April. The undergraduate faculties used in the calculationsare Agriculture, Architecture, Arts, Commerce, Education, Engineering, HouseholdSciences, Music, and Science, as well as the faculties of Dentistry, Medicine, andLaw, where students graduate with “first professional degrees.” Tables B.2.10 andB.2.11 also present average tuition fees for graduate studies (Master’s and doctorates).Excluded in all tuition tables are additional fees for items such as athletics, healthservices, student association, etc.

Typical-age graduation rate:

At the secondary school level this is calculated by relating the number of graduateswhose age is equal to or less than the typical age of graduation to the population atthe typical age of graduation. The typical age of graduation is the age at which personscomplete high school if they start at the prescribed age and experience no repetitionor interruption in their schooling. The typical age of graduation is 18 for alljurisdictions except Quebec, where it is 17.


168

2


UUndergraduate enrolment (by registration status):

University students in bachelor’s, first professional and applied degree programs,students in an undergraduate preliminary or pre-bachelor year, as well as those inundergraduate diploma and certificate, license undergraduate, and licentiate testamurprograms.

Full-time/part-time enrolment: A classification of enrolment as either full timeor part time is made according to institutional definitions. Since standard pan-Canadian definitions of full-time and part-time enrolment do not exist, it can beexpected that the definitions used by institutions will vary somewhat.

Unemployment rate:

Shows the unemployed as a proportion of the labour force. Unemployed individualsare those who, during the Labour Force Survey (LFS) reference week, were availablefor work and were either on temporary layoff, had looked for work in the past fourweeks or had a job to start within the next four weeks. The LFS divides the populationaged 15 and over into three mutually exclusive groups: those who are employed, thosewho are unemployed, and those who are not in the labour force.

Universities:

These include:

Universities: Independent institutions granting degrees in at least arts and sciences.

Colleges of theology: Independent institutions granting degrees only in theology.

Liberal arts colleges: Independent institutions granting degrees in only in arts.

Other: Independent institutions granting degrees in specialized fields other thantheology (such as engineering, fine arts).

University college programs:

These refer to degree-granting programs offered by community colleges. These differfrom university transfer programs also offered by some community colleges, as thecollege offers the degree-granting program in its entirety (that is, all the years of thedegree-granting program). Community colleges offering these programs are able todo so as they have been awarded degree-granting powers in certain fields or programsof study by the jurisdiction.

University degrees granted:

Degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by universities in Canada.

University expenditures on research and development (R&D):

University expenditures on research and development (R & D) are estimated by theScience, Innovation and Electronic Information Division (SIEID) of Statistics Canadabased on the following calculations. University expenditures on research anddevelopment are equal to:

a) sponsored research expenditures (available from Canadian Association ofUniversity Business Officers (CAUBO) sources) (The CAUBO survey providesrevenue data on sponsored research for member institutions);

Appendix

169

2


b) indirect expenditures on sponsored research (those not reimbursed by sponsors);

c) a value for the fraction of faculty members’ time assumed to be devoted tosponsored and non-sponsored research (correcting for cases where sponsoredresearch covers salaries of principal investigators);

d) indirect expenditures related to faculty members’ time on research (c above); and

e) teaching hospitals not included in CAUBO sources.

The list of institutions retained for the estimation of R&D expenditures is based onpayments (grants and contracts) awarded to institutions or their faculty for sponsoredresearch and reported in the annual CAUBO survey.

University transfer programs:

Programs of postsecondary non-university institutions that require secondary schoolcompletion to enter, and which provide a student with standing equivalent to thefirst or second year of a university degree program with which a student can apply foradmission to subsequent senior years at a degree-granting institution. The “général”programs of the Quebec CEGEPs, completion of which is a prerequisite for entryinto Quebec universities, are included in this classification.

VVisible minority:

Refers to the visible minority group to which the respondent belongs. The EmploymentEquity Act defines visible minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, whoare non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”.

Tables A

171

171


Chapter A tables

Table A.1.1Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29,Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2031 173

Table A.1.2Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29with Aboriginal identity, Canada and jurisdictions,2001 to 2016 176

Table A.2.1Proportion of immigrants among the school-agepopulation (ages 5 to 24), Canada and jurisdictions,in and out of census metropolitan areas (CMAs),1991, 1996 and 2001 179

Table A.2.2Proportion of visible minorities among the school-agepopulation (ages 5 to 24), Canada and jurisdictions,in and out of census metropolitan areas (CMAs),1991, 1996 and 2001 180

Table A.2.3Proportion of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24)with non-official home language, Canada andjurisdictions, in and out of census metropolitanareas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001 181

Table A.2.4Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity, Canada, in and out of censusmetropolitan areas (CMAs), 1996 and 2001 182

Table A.2.5Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity, jurisdictions, in and out of censusmetropolitan areas (CMAs), 1996 and 2001 182

Table A.3.1Percentage of the school-age population(ages 5 to 24) in low income, Canada and provinces,1990, 1995, 2000 and 2004 185

Table A.3.2Distribution of the school-age population(ages 5 to 24), by number of years in low incomebetween 1999 and 2004, Canada and provinces 186

Table A.4.1Distribution of the school-age population, by age groupand living arrangements, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 187

Table A.4.2Distribution of the school-age population, by age groupand work activity of parents, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 191

Table A.4.3Distribution of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity, by age group and livingarrangements, Canada and jurisdictions, 1996and 2001 196

Table A.4.4Distribution of the population aged 5 to 24 withAboriginal identity, by age group and work activity ofparents, Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 2001 201

173

A1Chapter A tables


Table A.1.1

Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29, Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2031

Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T. Nvt.

Ages 0 to 29

Population in thousands

1991 12,313 283 59 405 335 2,992 4,577 500 460 1,236 1,415 14 22 151996 12,150 242 58 376 308 2,849 4,543 485 446 1,231 1,558 14 22 172001 12,155 197 54 349 283 2,763 4,706 475 422 1,312 1,544 12 20 182006 12,269 179 53 334 267 2,741 4,830 478 406 1,364 1,563 12 21 192011 12,218 165 51 320 252 2,655 4,903 477 384 1,366 1,589 12 22 202016 12,138 152 49 304 238 2,603 4,943 475 361 1,365 1,593 12 22 202021 12,071 142 47 290 225 2,547 4,981 473 344 1,366 1,604 12 22 202026 12,009 135 45 278 213 2,480 5,016 470 331 1,370 1,618 12 22 202031 12,087 129 44 270 206 2,458 5,098 472 322 1,384 1,649 12 23 20

Indices of change

1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001996 99 86 98 93 92 95 99 97 97 100 110 102 100 1102001 99 70 91 86 85 92 103 95 92 106 109 88 92 1162006 100 63 89 83 80 92 106 96 88 110 110 89 96 1212011 99 58 86 79 75 89 107 95 84 111 112 88 99 1292016 99 54 82 75 71 87 108 95 79 110 113 85 101 1312021 98 50 79 72 67 85 109 94 75 111 113 85 101 1312026 98 48 76 69 64 83 110 94 72 111 114 83 101 1312031 98 46 74 67 62 82 111 94 70 112 117 83 101 132

Ages 0 to 4


1991 1,958 38 10 62 49 456 731 84 79 212 228 3 4 31996 1,961 31 9 57 45 459 755 82 72 200 242 2 4 42001 1,759 25 8 48 38 382 708 73 62 191 215 2 3 42006 1,698 23 7 43 35 375 668 70 60 201 207 2 3 42011 1,725 22 7 42 34 380 680 72 59 208 213 2 3 42016 1,782 21 7 42 33 382 714 75 58 216 225 2 4 42021 1,817 20 7 42 32 379 745 76 56 218 233 2 4 42026 1,813 19 7 40 31 370 760 75 53 216 234 2 4 42031 1,781 18 6 38 29 355 758 73 50 213 233 2 4 4

Indices of change

1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001996 100 82 95 92 92 101 103 98 92 94 106 95 101 1052001 90 67 80 78 79 84 97 87 79 90 94 71 79 1032006 87 62 72 70 72 82 91 84 75 95 91 64 78 1052011 88 59 72 68 69 83 93 86 74 98 94 68 78 1022016 91 57 73 68 68 84 98 89 74 102 99 72 82 1052021 93 54 72 67 66 83 102 91 71 103 102 72 85 1052026 93 50 69 65 62 81 104 90 67 102 103 72 85 1052031 91 47 65 61 59 78 104 88 63 100 102 68 82 105

Tables A1


174

A1


Table A.1.1

Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29, Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2031 (continued)


Ages 5 to 14


1991 3,832 91 20 124 105 941 1,368 159 160 399 449 5 7 51996 4,024 79 20 125 100 922 1,500 165 160 426 509 5 8 62001 4,095 64 19 118 93 924 1,601 165 147 436 510 4 7 72006 3,927 56 17 105 84 863 1,591 159 131 420 484 4 7 72011 3,697 50 15 94 75 793 1,508 149 119 411 465 4 7 72016 3,669 47 15 89 71 791 1,484 147 116 421 471 3 7 72021 3,764 45 15 88 70 798 1,536 152 116 436 491 4 7 72026 3,868 44 15 88 68 799 1,606 156 114 447 512 4 7 72031 3,910 42 14 86 66 790 1,657 157 109 449 523 4 8 7

Indices of change

1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001996 105 87 102 101 95 98 110 104 100 107 113 112 112 1192001 107 71 96 95 88 98 117 104 92 109 114 98 111 1322006 102 61 86 85 79 92 116 100 82 105 108 88 105 1292011 96 55 77 76 71 84 110 93 75 103 104 77 102 1352016 96 52 74 71 67 84 108 93 73 106 105 75 104 1352021 98 50 74 71 66 85 112 96 72 109 109 79 107 1352026 101 49 74 71 65 85 117 98 71 112 114 82 110 1372031 102 47 73 69 63 84 121 99 68 112 116 82 111 137

Ages 15 to 19


1991 1,928 55 10 68 60 465 709 82 74 182 217 2 3 21996 2,010 46 10 63 54 499 720 79 79 198 254 2 3 22001 2,117 40 10 63 52 468 805 83 80 228 281 2 3 32006 2,165 34 10 63 49 474 849 85 76 235 280 2 4 32011 2,170 30 10 58 45 480 880 86 67 228 278 2 4 32016 2,006 26 8 52 40 417 839 79 59 215 262 2 3 32021 1,953 24 8 47 37 411 805 76 57 218 261 2 3 32026 1,990 24 8 47 36 416 823 78 57 225 269 2 4 32031 2,058 23 8 47 36 419 862 81 57 234 282 2 4 3

Indices of change

1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001996 104 84 101 94 90 107 102 97 107 109 117 107 107 1162001 110 73 102 93 87 100 114 101 108 125 129 124 107 1302006 112 62 102 93 82 102 120 105 102 129 129 103 115 1582011 113 54 95 86 76 103 124 105 90 126 128 98 122 1532016 104 48 84 76 67 90 118 97 80 119 121 98 112 1532021 101 45 77 70 62 88 114 94 76 120 120 103 112 1582026 103 43 77 69 60 89 116 96 76 124 124 118 115 1532031 107 43 78 70 60 90 122 100 76 129 130 123 118 158

175

A1Chapter A tables


Table A.1.1

Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29, Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2031 (concluded)


Ages 20 to 24


1991 2,088 51 10 70 57 503 802 82 67 201 238 2 4 21996 2,002 44 10 65 55 471 745 80 69 197 259 2 3 22001 2,110 36 9 61 50 516 785 78 70 230 268 2 3 22006 2,253 35 10 64 51 491 873 85 75 252 308 3 4 32011 2,295 31 10 64 49 496 914 87 70 251 313 2 4 32016 2,304 28 9 60 46 502 944 87 63 245 311 2 4 32021 2,146 25 8 54 41 441 904 81 56 232 295 2 4 32026 2,097 23 8 50 38 435 873 79 54 233 294 2 4 32031 2,138 23 8 50 38 440 893 81 54 240 303 2 4 3

Indices of change

1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001996 96 88 100 93 96 94 93 97 103 98 109 98 85 942001 101 71 95 86 88 103 98 95 104 114 113 83 84 982006 108 69 105 92 89 98 109 103 112 126 129 115 101 1152011 110 62 105 91 85 99 114 106 104 125 131 110 106 1402016 110 55 98 85 80 100 118 106 93 122 130 106 109 1362021 103 49 87 77 71 88 113 99 83 115 124 97 101 1312026 100 46 81 71 67 87 109 96 80 116 123 92 101 1362031 102 45 82 71 65 87 111 99 81 120 127 97 103 136

Ages 25 to 29


1991 2,507 49 10 81 64 627 967 94 79 242 284 3 4 21996 2,152 42 9 66 54 499 823 79 65 211 295 3 4 32001 2,074 32 8 59 50 474 807 76 62 228 270 2 3 22006 2,226 31 9 58 48 538 849 79 65 257 284 2 4 22011 2,330 32 10 62 49 506 921 85 69 268 320 2 4 32016 2,377 30 10 62 48 512 962 87 65 268 325 2 4 32021 2,392 27 9 58 45 518 992 87 59 262 324 2 4 32026 2,241 25 8 53 40 460 954 82 54 248 309 2 4 32031 2,199 23 8 50 38 454 928 79 52 249 309 2 4 3

Indices of change

1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001996 86 85 88 81 84 80 85 84 82 87 104 90 89 1082001 83 66 79 74 78 76 83 81 78 94 95 68 74 1072006 89 64 83 72 74 86 88 84 82 106 100 68 81 1042011 93 65 92 77 77 81 95 90 87 110 113 85 94 1212016 95 60 92 77 74 82 99 92 82 110 115 85 99 1382021 95 55 87 72 70 83 103 92 75 108 114 85 99 1342026 89 50 79 66 63 73 99 87 68 102 109 78 94 1302031 88 47 74 62 59 72 96 84 66 103 109 75 92 134

Sources: 1991 to 2005: Estimates of population, by age group and sex, Canada, provinces and territories, Statistics Canada.2006 to 2031: Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories 2005-2031, Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 91-520-XWE.


176

A1


Table A.1.2

Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29 with Aboriginal identity, Canada and jurisdictions, 2001 to 2016

Population in thousands Indices of change

2001 2006 2011 2016 2001 2006 2011 2016

Ages 0 to 29

Canada

North American Indian 424 456 496 534 100 107 117 126Métis 167 172 177 179 100 103 106 107Inuit 31 34 37 41 100 109 121 132

Total Aboriginal identity 622 662 710 754 100 106 114 121

Jurisdictions, total Aboriginal identity

Newfoundland and Labrador 10 11 12 13 100 110 119 125Prince Edward Island 1 1 1 1 100 120 135 147Nova Scotia 10 11 12 13 100 108 118 127New Brunswick 10 10 11 11 100 106 112 115Quebec 53 56 59 63 100 106 112 120Ontario 116 120 126 131 100 104 109 113Manitoba 98 106 116 126 100 108 118 128Saskatchewan 91 100 110 121 100 110 121 133Alberta 103 108 115 121 100 106 112 118British Columbia 99 103 107 110 100 103 108 110Yukon 4 4 5 5 100 116 131 146Northwest Territories 12 14 15 17 100 113 126 137Nunavut 16 18 20 22 100 111 124 138

Ages 0 to 4

Canada





177

A1Chapter A tables


Table A.1.2

Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29 with Aboriginal identity, Canada and jurisdictions,2001 to 2016 (continued)


2001 2006 2011 2016 2001 2006 2011 2016

Ages 5 to 14

Canada





Ages 15 to 19

Canada






178

A1


Table A.1.2

Estimates and projections, population aged 0 to 29 with Aboriginal identity, Canada and jurisdictions,2001 to 2016 (concluded)


2001 2006 2011 2016 2001 2006 2011 2016

Ages 20 to 24

Canada





Ages 25 to 29

Canada





Notes: 2001 base year population is adjusted for census net undercount and incompletely enumerated reserves.Due to rounding, the total may not be equal to the sum of all ages.Comparable data are not available for 1991 and 1996, and population projections for 2021 and beyond are not available.The data in this table are based on a different projection series than the data in Table A.1.1. The two should not be directly compared.

Source: Projections of the Aboriginal Populations, Canada, Provinces and Territories: Detailed Statistical Tables, 2001 to 2017, Catalogue no. 91-547-SCB,Statistics Canada, Demography Division, Scenario B.

179

A2Chapter A tables


Table A.2.1

Proportion of immigrants among the school-age population (ages 5 to 24), Canada andjurisdictions, in and out of census metropolitan areas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001

1991 1996 2001

percentage

Canada 9 10 10CMA 13 14 15Non-CMA 2 2 2

Newfoundland and Labrador 1 1 1St. John’s 1 2 1Non-CMA <1 <1 <1

Prince Edward Island 1 1 1

Nova Scotia 2 2 2Halifax 3 4 5Non-CMA 1 1 1

New Brunswick 2 2 2Saint John 2 1 2Non-CMA 2 2 1

Quebec 6 6 6Chicoutimi 1 1 1Montreal 11 12 11Quebec 2 2 3Sherbrooke 3 4 5Trois-Rivières 1 1 1Ottawa-Gatineau (Quebec part) 4 4 5Non-CMA 1 1 1

Ontario 13 14 15Hamilton 10 10 11Kingston 6 6 5Kitchener 13 12 12London 10 10 10Oshawa 7 6 4Ottawa-Gatineau (Ontario part) 12 13 14St. Catharines–Niagara 6 6 6Sudbury 1 1 2Thunder Bay 3 3 2Toronto 24 26 26Windsor 10 11 13Non-CMA 3 3 3

Manitoba 7 6 6Winnipeg 10 8 8Non-CMA 3 3 3

Saskatchewan 2 2 2Regina 4 4 4Saskatoon 4 4 4Non-CMA 1 1 1

Alberta 8 8 7Calgary 12 12 11Edmonton 10 10 8Non-CMA 3 3 3

British Columbia 12 14 15Abbotsford 9 9 9Vancouver 20 25 26Victoria 7 7 7Non-CMA 4 4 3

Yukon 5 4 3

Northwest Territories1 2 2 2

Nunavut1 … … <1

1. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for theNorthwest Territories. This creates a break in series for the Northwest Territories in 1999-2000.

Source: 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

Tables A2


180

A2


Table A.2.2

Proportion of visible minorities among the school-age population (ages 5 to 24), Canada and jurisdictions,in and out of census metropolitan areas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001

1991 1996 2001

percentage


Newfoundland and Labrador 1 1 1St. John’s 1 2 1Non-CMA 1 <1 <1

Prince Edward Island 1 2 1


New Brunswick 1 1 2Saint John 3 3 4Non-CMA 1 1 1

Quebec 7 8 9Chicoutimi 1 1 1Montreal 14 16 17Quebec 2 2 2Sherbrooke 3 3 3Trois-Rivières 1 1 1Ottawa-Gatineau (Quebec part) 5 4 5Non-CMA 1 1 1






Yukon 4 4 3


Nunavut1 … … <1

1. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a breakin series for the Northwest Territories in 1999-2000.


181

A2Chapter A tables


Table A.2.3

Proportion of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24) with non-official home language, Canada and jurisdictions,in and out of census metropolitan areas (CMAs), 1991, 1996 and 2001

1991 1996 2001

percentage


Newfoundland and Labrador <1 1 1St. John’s <1 1 <1Non-CMA 1 1 1

Prince Edward Island <1 <1 <1


New Brunswick 1 <1 1Saint John <1 <1 1Non-CMA 1 1 1

Quebec 5 5 5Chicoutimi <1 <1 <1Montreal 9 10 9Quebec 1 1 1Sherbrooke 1 2 2Trois-Rivières <1 <1 <1Ottawa-Gatineau (Quebec part) 2 3 3Non-CMA 2 2 2






Yukon 1 2 1


Nunavut1 … … 61

1. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a breakin series for the Northwest Territories in 1999-2000.



182

A2


Table A.2.4

Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, Canada, in and out of census metropolitan areas (CMAs),1996 and 20011

Aboriginal identity by group

1996 2001

Total North Total NorthAboriginal American Aboriginal American

identity2 Indian Métis Inuit identity2 Indian Métis Inuit


Canada 4 3 1 <1 5 3 1 <1CMA 2 1 1 <1 2 1 1 <1Non-CMA 8 5 2 1 9 6 2 1

1. Data from the 1991 Census are not directly comparable.2. Total Aboriginal identity includes the Aboriginal groups (North American Indian, Métis and Inuit), multiple Aboriginal responses and Aboriginal

responses not included elsewhere.Source: 1996 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

Table A.2.5

Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, jurisdictions, in and out of census metropolitan areas(CMAs), 1996 and 20011

Total Aboriginal identity2

1996 2001

percentage

Newfoundland and Labrador 3 5St. John’s 1 1Non-CMA 5 8

Prince Edward Island 1 1

Nova Scotia 2 3Halifax 1 1Non-CMA 3 4

New Brunswick 2 3Saint John 1 1Non-CMA 2 4

Quebec 1 2Total Quebec CMA <1 <1Chicoutimi 1 1Montreal <1 <1Québec <1 1Sherbrooke <1 <1Trois-Rivières 1 1Ottawa-Gatineau (Quebec part) 2 2Non-CMA 3 4

Ontario 2 2Total Ontario CMA 1 1Hamilton 1 2Kingston 1 2Kitchener 1 1London 2 2Oshawa 1 1Ottawa-Gatineau (Ontario part) 1 1St. Catharines–Niagara 1 2Sudbury 4 7Thunder Bay 8 10Toronto <1 1Windsor 1 2Non-CMA 4 5

183

A2Chapter A tables


Table A.2.5

Proportion of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, jurisdictions, in and out of census metropolitan areas(CMAs), 1996 and 20011 (concluded)

Total Aboriginal identity2

1996 2001

percentage

Manitoba 17 20Winnipeg 10 12Non-CMA 26 30

Saskatchewan 17 20Total Saskatchewan CMA 10 13Regina 10 12Saskatoon 11 13Non-CMA 21 26

Alberta 6 8Total Alberta CMA 4 5Calgary 3 3Edmonton 5 6Non-CMA 10 12

British Columbia 6 6Total British Columbia CMA 3 3Abbotsford 3 4Vancouver 2 3Victoria 3 4Non-CMA 10 12

Yukon 24 29

Northwest Territories3 58 61

Nunavut3 92 93

1. Data from the 1991 Census are not directly comparable.2. Total Aboriginal identity includes the Aboriginal groups (North American Indian, Métis and Inuit), multiple Aboriginal responses and Aboriginal

responses not included elsewhere.3. Nunavut and Northwest Territories: data are calculated using 1999 boundaries.Source: 1996 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

185

Chapter A tables A3


Table A.3.1

Percentage of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24) in low income,1

Canada and provinces, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2004

1990 1995 2000 2004

percentageCanada

All 14 19 15 15Living with two parents 7 10 8 7Living with lone parent 32 38 27 26Not living with any parent 33 43 39 38

Newfoundland and LabradorAll 17 19 17 17Living with two parents 10 13 10 9Living with lone parent 46 43 38 26Not living with any parent 32 45 45 50

Prince Edward IslandAll 7 10 11 7Living with two parents 3 4 6 3Living with lone parent 15 28 14 10Not living with any parent 21 22 34 31

Nova ScotiaAll 12 18 14 11Living with two parents 3 8 7 4Living with lone parent 35 43 25 23Not living with any parent 32 40 35 35

New BrunswickAll 13 18 12 10Living with two parents 5 9 5 3Living with lone parent 37 39 26 24Not living with any parent 25 34 34 27

QuebecAll 16 21 16 13Living with two parents 8 11 8 7Living with lone parent 39 37 30 21Not living with any parent 36 52 41 36

OntarioAll 11 17 13 14Living with two parents 6 9 7 7Living with lone parent 24 38 23 27Not living with any parent 28 38 40 39

ManitobaAll 18 23 17 13Living with two parents 10 13 9 7Living with lone parent 36 40 36 21Not living with any parent 36 52 38 36

SaskatchewanAll 18 19 15 16Living with two parents 10 11 6 6Living with lone parent 39 40 31 21Not living with any parent 34 36 35 42

AlbertaAll 16 21 15 16Living with two parents 6 10 8 8Living with lone parent 40 47 22 22Not living with any parent 35 47 35 42

British ColumbiaAll 15 19 18 18Living with two parents 7 13 11 10Living with lone parent 29 28 28 36Not living with any parent 36 40 43 36

1. Based on after-tax low-income cutoffs.Note: The data for 1990, 1995 and 2000 have been revised and may be different from those previously published

in the Education Indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program 2005.Sources: 1990 and 1995: Survey of Consumer Finances, Statistics Canada.

2000 and 2004: Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, Statistics Canada.

Tables A3


186

A3


Table A.3.2

Distribution of the school-age population (ages 5 to 24), by number of years in low income1 between 1999 and 2004,Canada and provinces

Up to one More thanNever in year in low one year in

low income income low income Total

percentageCanada

All 74 11 15 100Living with two parents 81 9 10 100Living with lone parent 55 14 32 100Not living with any parent 56 17 27 100

Newfoundland and LabradorAll 65 14 21 100Living with two parents 76 12 12 100Living with lone parent 32 16 53 100Not living with any parent 30 24 47 100

Prince Edward IslandAll 79 8 13 100Living with two parents 79 8 12 100Living with lone parent F F F FNot living with any parent F F F F

Nova ScotiaAll 70 12 18 100Living with two parents 81 8 12 100Living with lone parent 40 20 41 100Not living with any parent 50 28 22 100

New BrunswickAll 70 14 16 100Living with two parents 78 13 10 100Living with lone parent 49 13 39 100Not living with any parent 48 22 29 100

QuebecAll 75 8 16 100Living with two parents 83 6 11 100Living with lone parent 56 9 35 100Not living with any parent 53 19 28 100

OntarioAll 79 10 11 100Living with two parents 83 9 8 100Living with lone parent 62 13 25 100Not living with any parent 63 14 23 100

ManitobaAll 70 11 19 100Living with two parents 76 8 15 100Living with lone parent 48 22 31 100Not living with any parent 62 13 25 100

SaskatchewanAll 70 15 16 100Living with two parents 77 12 12 100Living with lone parent 49 20 31 100Not living with any parent 59 21 19 100

AlbertaAll 71 11 17 100Living with two parents 75 9 15 100Living with lone parent 62 11 26 100Not living with any parent 56 22 23 100

British ColumbiaAll 67 13 20 100Living with two parents 76 11 12 100Living with lone parent 44 19 37 100Not living with any parent 54 F 37 100

1. Based on after-tax low-income cutoffs.Source: Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, Statistics Canada.

187

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.1

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and living arrangements, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001

1991 2001

5 to 24 5 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 5 to 24 5 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24

percentage percentageCanadaLiving with parent(s) 84 98 90 50 87 99 93 57Married parents 66 78 71 39 62 69 68 43Common-law parents 4 6 3 1 8 11 6 2Lone parent 14 15 16 9 17 19 19 11Not living with any parent 16 2 10 50 13 1 7 43Living as spouse 7 0 2 25 5 0 2 20Living as lone parent 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 3Other living arrangements 9 2 7 23 7 1 5 20

All living arrangements 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number in thousands) 7,590.4 3,782.2 1,863.7 1,944.5 7,995.7 4,027.7 2,036.1 1,931.9

Newfoundland and LabradorLiving with parent(s) 87 97 93 62 90 99 95 68Married parents 75 83 80 52 69 72 74 56Common-law parents 3 4 2 1 6 9 5 2Lone parent 10 10 11 9 16 18 16 10Not living with any parent 13 3 7 38 10 1 5 32Living as spouse 6 0 2 22 4 0 1 16Living as lone parent 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 5Other living arrangements 6 3 5 14 4 1 3 12


Population (number in thousands) 192.5 91.0 54.1 47.3 137.3 64.3 39.3 33.7

Prince Edward IslandLiving with parent(s) 86 98 91 55 88 100 94 58Married parents 71 82 75 45 68 75 73 46Common-law parents 3 4 3 1 5 7 3 1Lone parent 12 12 14 9 16 17 17 11Not living with any parent 14 2 9 45 12 0 6 42Living as spouse 7 0 2 26 5 0 2 20Living as lone parent 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 5Other living arrangements 7 2 7 18 5 0 4 16



Nova ScotiaLiving with parent(s) 84 98 91 50 87 99 94 54Married parents 67 78 73 41 62 69 69 42Common-law parents 3 5 3 1 6 8 5 2Lone parent 13 15 15 9 19 22 20 10Not living with any parent 16 2 9 50 13 1 6 46Living as spouse 7 0 2 25 5 0 1 19Living as lone parent 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 5Other living arrangements 8 2 7 21 7 1 4 22



Tables A4


188

A4


Table A.4.1

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and living arrangements, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 (continued)

1991 2001


percentage percentageNew Brunswick

Living with parent(s) 85 98 91 51 87 99 93 54Married parents 68 79 73 41 62 69 68 42Common-law parents 4 5 3 1 8 11 6 2Lone parent 13 14 15 9 17 19 19 10Not living with any parent 15 2 9 49 13 1 7 46Living as spouse 7 0 2 27 6 0 2 24Living as lone parent 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 5Other living arrangements 7 2 7 19 6 1 4 18



Quebec



Population (number in thousands) 1,853.7 931.4 450.4 471.9 1,859.5 916.3 459.7 483.5

Ontario



Population (number in thousands) 2,758.2 1,346.2 676.2 735.9 3,037.1 1,563.6 763.2 710.3

Manitoba




189

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.1

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and living arrangements, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 (continued)

1991 2001


percentage percentageSaskatchewan




Alberta




British Columbia



Population (number in thousands) 873.5 440.8 210.8 221.9 1,011.1 501.4 268.9 240.8

Yukon





190

A4


Table A.4.1

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and living arrangements, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 (concluded)

1991 2001


percentage percentageNorthwest Territories




Nunavut




1. To ensure the confidentiality of responses collected for the Census, a random rounding process is used to alter the values reported in individual cells. Asa result, when these data are summed or grouped, the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals areindependently and randomly rounded. However, apart from discrepancies due to simple rounding, the percentages are calculated to add up to 100%, asrecommended by Census methodology.

Source: 1991 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

191

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.2

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and work activity of parents, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001

1991 2001


percentage percentageCanada

Work activity, two-parent family 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Both full time 48 45 53 48 52 49 56 54One full time, other part time 24 26 22 18 23 25 21 18One full time, other neither working for paynor self-employed 22 23 19 22 19 20 16 19Other2 7 5 7 12 6 6 6 9

Population (number in thousands),two-parent family 5,324.4 3,148.6 1,387.2 788.7 5,597.8 3,220.7 1,497.1 880.0

Work activity, lone-parent family 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Full time 60 56 65 63 63 59 67 67Part time 13 15 12 11 15 16 13 11Neither working for pay nor self-employed 27 29 23 26 22 24 19 22

Population (number in thousands),lone-parent family 1,026.6 557.1 288.9 180.6 1,387.8 772.8 394.3 220.8



Population (number in thousands),two-parent family 148.7 79.1 44.4 25.1 102.5 52.2 30.8 19.5


Population (number in thousands),lone-parent family 19.5 9.1 6.1 4.3 21.3 11.6 6.4 3.3







192

A4


Table A.4.2

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and work activity of parents, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 (continued)

1991 2001


percentage percentageNova Scotia





New Brunswick





Quebec


Population (number in thousands),two-parent family 1,289.6 768.2 332.1 189.3 1,258.1 721.7 328.8 207.6



193

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.2


1991 2001


percentage percentageOntario


Population (number in thousands),two-parent family 1,977.1 1,128.4 514.9 333.9 2,223.3 1,273.0 579.8 370.5



Manitoba





Saskatchewan






194

A4


Table A.4.2


1991 2001


percentage percentageAlberta





British Columbia





Yukon





195

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.2

Distribution1 of the school-age population, by age group and work activity of parents, Canada and jurisdictions,1991 and 2001 (concluded)

1991 2001


percentage percentageNorthwest Territories





Nunavut






2. Both parents working part time; one part time, the other neither working for pay nor self-employed; both neither working for pay nor self-employed.Source: 1991 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.


196

A4


Table A.4.3

Distribution1 of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, by age group and living arrangements,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 20012

1996 2001


percentage percentageCanada, total Aboriginal identity3



Population (number) 323,905 180,860 74,480 68,565 389,845 221,230 92,845 75,775

Canada, North American Indian




Canada, Métis




Canada, Inuit

Living with parent(s) 79 92 79 42 83 97 81 41Married parents 49 54 55 29 45 50 48 24Common-law parents 14 20 8 3 17 23 12 4Lone parents 16 18 16 10 21 24 21 12Not living with any parent 21 8 21 58 17 3 19 59Living as a spouse 9 0 8 37 8 0 6 38Living as lone parent 1 0 1 4 3 0 4 10Other living arrangements 11 8 12 17 6 3 8 12



197

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.3

Distribution1 of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, by age group and living arrangements,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 20012 (continued)

1996 2001


percentage percentageNewfoundland and Labrador,total Aboriginal identity3




Prince Edward Island,total Aboriginal identity3



Population (number) 395 245 100 45 520 285 125 115

Nova Scotia, total Aboriginal identity3




New Brunswick,total Aboriginal identity3

Living with parent(s) 76 92 78 36 84 98 83 46Married parents 40 48 45 16 42 45 41 33Common-law parents 13 18 9 3 14 18 13 3Lone parent 23 26 24 17 29 35 29 10Not living with any parent 24 8 22 64 16 2 17 54Living as a spouse 10 0 6 38 6 0 4 25Living as lone parent 2 0 1 8 2 0 2 10Other living arrangements 12 8 15 18 7 2 11 18


Population (number) 4,065 2,175 910 980 6,020 3,210 1,625 1,190


198

A4


Table A.4.3


1996 2001


percentage percentageQuebec, total Aboriginal identity3

Living with parent(s) 78 92 82 44 83 98 84 43Married parents 47 52 52 29 43 47 47 27Common-law parents 11 17 8 2 15 21 11 3Lone parents 21 23 23 13 25 29 27 13Not living with any parent 22 8 18 56 17 2 16 57Living as spouse 9 0 6 33 8 0 6 31Living as lone parent 1 0 1 5 3 0 4 10Other living arrangements 11 8 11 17 6 2 6 15



Ontario, total Aboriginal identity3




Manitoba, total Aboriginal identity3




Saskatchewan, total Aboriginal identity3




199

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.3


1996 2001


percentage percentageAlberta, total Aboriginal population3




British Columbia, total Aboriginal identity3




Yukon, total Aboriginal identity3



Population (number) 2,160 1,245 465 450 2,355 1,335 570 450

Northwest Territories,total Aboriginal identity3





200

A4


Table A.4.3

Distribution1 of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, by age group and living arrangements,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 20012 (concluded)

1996 2001


percentage percentageNunavut, total Aboriginal identity3





2. Comparisons for the general population are based on 1991 and 2001 Census data. For the population with Aboriginal identity, however, 1991 Censusdata are not directly comparable with those from subsequent censuses; therefore, 1996 and 2001 Census data were used to examine this population.

3. Total Aboriginal identity includes the Aboriginal groups (North American Indian, Métis and Inuit), multiple Aboriginal responses and Aboriginalresponses not included elsewhere.


201

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.4

Distribution1 of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, by age group and work activity of parents,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 20012

1996 2001




Population (number), two-parent family 165,590 109,730 38,880 16,980 202,335 134,240 49,020 19,070


Population (number), lone-parent family 80,025 53,220 18,775 8,035 113,095 76,970 26,665 9,455

Canada, North American Indian





Canada, Métis






202

A4


Table A.4.4

Distribution1 of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, by age group and work activity of parents,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 20012 (continued)

1996 2001


percentage percentageCanada, Inuit




Population (number), lone-parent family 2,890 1,870 645 380 4,270 2,850 965 450

Newfoundland and Labrador,total Aboriginal identity3


Population (number), two-parent family 3,945 2,190 1,055 700 5,130 2,820 1,520 790


Population (number), lone-parent family 805 490 190 125 1,135 695 305 135

Prince Edward Island,total Aboriginal identity3


Population (number), two-parent family 260 185 60 15 315 210 70 35


Population (number), lone-parent family 85 55 25 05 105 70 30 0

203

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.4


1996 2001


percentage percentageNova Scotia, total Aboriginal identity3


Population (number), two-parent family 2,435 1,520 595 325 3,345 2,145 840 360


Population (number), lone-parent family 1,360 890 325 145 2,100 1,350 505 245

New Brunswick, total Aboriginal identity3


Population (number), two-parent family 2,120 1,440 495 180 3,330 2,025 870 430


Population (number), lone-parent family 950 565 215 170 1,720 1,125 470 120

Quebec, total Aboriginal identity3




Population (number), lone-parent family 5,390 3,215 1,370 805 7,275 4,685 1,790 800


204

A4


Table A.4.4


1996 2001


percentage percentageOntario, total Aboriginal identity3





Manitoba, total Aboriginal identity3





Saskatchewan, total Aboriginal identity3




Population (number), lone-parent family 13,320 9,360 2,975 990 19,105 13,790 3,975 1,335

205

A4Chapter A tables


Table A.4.4


1996 2001


percentage percentageAlberta, total Aboriginal identity3





British Columbia, total Aboriginal identity3





Yukon, total Aboriginal identity3


Population (number), two-parent family 1,135 810 220 110 1,110 725 285 100


Population (number), lone-parent family 500 325 105 70 805 505 205 90


206

A4


Northwest Territories,total Aboriginal identity3





Nunavut, total Aboriginal identity3






2. Comparisons for the general population are based on 1991 and 2001 Census data. For the population with Aboriginal identity, however, 1991 Censusdata are not directly comparable with those from subsequent censuses; therefore, 1996 and 2001 Census data were used to examine this population.


4. Both parents working part time; one part time, the other neither working for pay nor self-employed; both neither working for pay nor self-employed.5. Data randomly rounded. Independently rounded numbers for the sub-categories (full time, part time, not working for lone-parent families) in Prince

Edward Island are 10, 0, 0, respectively; however, percentages were calculated to add up to 100%, as recommended by Census methodology.Source: 1996 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

Table A.4.4

Distribution1 of the population aged 5 to 24 with Aboriginal identity, by age group and work activity of parents,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 20012 (concluded)

1996 2001




Chapter B tables

Table B.1.1Combined public and private expenditure oneducation, by level of education, Canada andjurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars) 209

Table B.1.2Indices of change in combined public and privateexpenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars,by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100) 212

Table B.1.3Percentage distribution of combined public and privateexpenditure on education, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 214

Table B.1.4Combined public and private expenditure oneducation per capita and index of change, Canadaand jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in 2001 constant dollars) 216

Table B.1.5Combined public and private expenditure oneducation as a percentage of GDP and index of change,Canada and jurisdictions, 1999/2000 to 2002/2003 216

Table B.2.1Public expenditure on education, health, socialservices, and non-social programs, Canada,1989/1990 to 2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars) 217

Table B.2.2Public expenditure on education, by level of education, Canadaand jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars) 218

Table B.2.3Indices of change in public expenditure on education,in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(1997/1998 = 100) 221

Tables B

Table B.2.4Private expenditure on education, by level ofeducation, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to2002/2003 (in millions of 2001 constant dollars) 223

Table B.2.5Indices of change in private expenditure oneducation, in 2001 constant dollars, by levelof education, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100) 226

Table B.2.6Private expenditure as a percentage of totalexpenditure on education, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 228

Table B.2.7Percentage of households incurring educationexpenditure and average expenditure per householdon education, Canada and provinces, 2004 230

Table B.2.8Average undergraduate university tuition fees,Canada and provinces, 1991/1992 to 2005/2006(in 2001 constant dollars) 230

Table B.2.9Average undergraduate university tuition fees,Canada and provinces, 2006/2007(in current dollars) 231

Table B.2.10Average university tuition fees by faculty, Canada,1991/1992 to 2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars) 231

Table B.2.11Average university tuition fees by faculty, Canada,2006/2007 (in current dollars) 232

Table B.2.12University and university-college revenues, by source,as a percentage of total revenue, Canada and provinces,1999/2000 and 2004/2005 232



Chapter B tables

Table B.2.13University expenditure, by resourcecategory, Canada and provinces, 1999/2000to 2004/2005 (in thousands of 2001constant dollars) 233

Table B.2.14Percentage distribution of university expenditure,by resource category, Canada and provinces,1999/2000 to 2004/2005 235

Table B.3.1Percentage of graduates who borrowed fromgovernment student loan programs and averagedebt at graduation, 1995 and 2000 graduates,Canada and provinces 237

Table B.3.2Incidence and repayment of government studentloans among 2000 graduates who did not pursueany further postsecondary education program,Canada and provinces 239

209

Chapter B tables B1


Table B.1.1

Combined public and private expenditure on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (in millions of 2001 constant dollars)

Pre-elementary, All Allelementary- Trade- post- levels

secondary vocational7 College7 University secondary combined

millions of 2001 constant dollarsCanada1

1997/1998 40,209 6,168 5,066 13,214 24,448 64,6571998/1999 41,545 6,909 5,099 13,778 25,786 67,3321999/2000 41,501 5,587 5 757 15 316 26,660 68,1602000/2001 41,304 5,808 5,667 16,580 28,055 69,3592001/2002 42,295 5,632 5,824 17,466 28,921 71,2162002/2003 42,717 5,215 5,593 18,798 29,606 72,323

Newfoundland and Labrador2

1997/1998 598 455 39 253 747 1,3451998/1999 601 339 32 262 633 1,2341999/2000 597 202 36 283 520 1,1172000/2001 583 200 34 285 519 1,1022001/2002 608 201 42 308 551 1,1602002/2003 611 206 38 305 548 1,160


1997/1998 137 59 30 49 137 2741998/1999 155 56 23 53 132 2871999/2000 152 36 24 58 118 2702000/2001 154 34 23 62 120 2742001/2002 156 32 25 66 123 2802002/2003 150 35 31 73 140 290

Nova Scotia

1997/1998 993 221 80 502 802 1,7951998/1999 1,101 223 98 559 880 1,9811999/2000 1,139 117 108 639 864 2,0032000/2001 1,015 142 106 661 909 1,9232001/2002 1,006 124 110 681 915 1,9212002/2003 1,032 91 110 731 932 1,965

New Brunswick3

1997/1998 909 228 72 346 647 1,5561998/1999 924 215 83 343 641 1,5651999/2000 930 215 67 358 640 1,5702000/2001 858 286 76 374 736 1,5942001/2002 864 273 85 381 739 1,6032002/2003 864 171 83 404 658 1,522

Quebec4

1997/1998 8,202 1,155 2,126 3,370 6,651 14,8531998/1999 8,269 1,874 2,118 3,384 7,377 15,6461999/2000 8,966 1,199 2,117 3,686 7,002 15,9692000/2001 9,068 1,287 2,201 3,883 7,370 16,4392001/2002 9,628 1,240 2,227 4,231 7,697 17,3262002/2003 9,318 1,297 2,144 4,703 8,144 17,462

Tables B1


210

B1


Table B.1.1

Combined public and private expenditure on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (in millions of 2001 constant dollars) (continued)



millions of 2001 constant dollarsOntario

1997/1998 16,911 1,637 1,488 4,764 7,888 24,7991998/1999 17,500 1,572 1,459 5,109 8,140 25,6401999/2000 16,739 1,398 2,039 5,688 9,125 25,8642000/2001 16,328 1,294 1,759 6,103 9,155 25,4832001/2002 16,391 1,166 1,808 6,406 9,380 25,7702002/2003 16,780 1,067 1,692 6,826 9,585 26,366

Manitoba

1997/1998 1,756 220 99 489 808 2,5641998/1999 1,813 255 99 536 890 2,7031999/2000 1,848 216 110 568 895 2,7422000/2001 1,869 238 119 606 962 2,8322001/2002 1,854 246 117 628 991 2,8452002/2003 1,946 235 126 669 1,030 2,977

Saskatchewan

1997/1998 1,456 283 65 554 902 2,3581998/1999 1,480 307 66 551 924 2,4041999/2000 1,471 326 65 626 1,017 2,4882000/2001 1,498 330 72 678 1,080 2,5782001/2002 1,490 327 74 723 1,125 2,6152002/2003 1,589 287 76 785 1,148 2,737

Alberta

1997/1998 3,870 755 436 1,168 2,359 6,2291998/1999 4,212 900 477 1,246 2,624 6,8361999/2000 4,154 727 583 1,461 2,770 6,9242000/2001 4,235 859 680 1,688 3,227 7,4622001/2002 4,401 853 671 1,756 3,280 7,6812002/2003 4,568 774 647 1,800 3,221 7,789

British Columbia

1997/1998 5,043 939 578 1,633 3,150 8,1931998/1999 5,139 930 589 1,645 3,163 8,3021999/2000 5,186 987 540 1,855 3,383 8,5682000/2001 5,383 1,025 530 2,147 3,703 9,0852001/2002 5,552 1,043 598 2,185 3,826 9,3782002/2003 5,493 924 575 2,411 3,910 9,403

Yukon5

1997/1998 88 18 8 4 30 1181998/1999 81 19 7 4 30 1111999/2000 85 30 8 4 41 1262000/2001 83 27 8 5 40 1232001/2002 87 29 9 4 43 1302002/2003 90 28 8 4 40 130

Northwest Territories5,6

1997/1998 221 40 45 4 88 3091998/1999 218 45 43 5 92 3111999/2000 122 39 35 5 79 2012000/2001 120 38 37 4 79 1982001/2002 140 42 40 4 85 2262002/2003 148 43 42 4 89 237

211

Chapter B tables B1


Table B.1.1

Combined public and private expenditure on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (in millions of 2001 constant dollars) (concluded)



millions of 2001 constant dollarsNunavut5, 6

1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 88 37 8 21 1 60 1482000/2001 87 45 21 1 67 1542001/2002 92 55 16 2 73 1652002/2003 96 53 20 2 75 171

1. The data shown at the Canada level include Canada’s spending on education in foreign countries (e.g., Department of National Defence schools), andundistributed expenditure.

2. The decline in expenditure in Newfoundland and Labrador was in fact a return to “normal” expenditure level after a significant but short-term fundingincrease in the mid-1990s, notably for the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy.

3. Although the decrease in public and private expenditure on education in New Brunswick in 2000/2001, 2001/2002, and 2002/2003 reflects a change inemployer contributions to teachers’ pension plans, the actual data for 2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 for New Brunswick show an increase inexpenditure for school district operations at the elementary/secondary level in all three years.

4. Expenditure at the elementary-secondary level in Quebec includes trade-vocational expenditure administered through the elementary-secondary system.5. Although there are no universities in the territories, there are expenditures at the university level including student aid as well as administrative

expenditures. These expenditures are also included in the provincial data.6. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a break

in series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.7. Expenditure on private business colleges is not included.8. Slightly underestimated as tuition-fees (part of private expenditure) for the trade-vocational portion not reported for the only college in Nunavut in

1999/2000.Note: Large year-over-year variations in public and private funding to school boards are caused by accounting adjustments to prior-year surpluses and/or

deficits. This means that trends should be observed over a period of years rather than from one year to the next.Sources: Survey of Uniform Financial System of School Boards, Statistics Canada.

Survey of Financial Statistics of Private Elementary and Secondary Schools, Statistics Canada.Survey of Federal Government Expenditures in Support of Education, Statistics Canada.Survey of Financial Information of Universities and Colleges, Statistics Canada.Financial Statistics of Community Colleges and Vocational Schools, Statistics Canada.Provincial Expenditures on Education in Reform and Correctional Institutions, Statistics Canada.Provincial Public Accounts.


212

B1


Table B.1.2

Indices of change in combined public and private expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100)


secondary vocational College University secondary combined

indexCanada1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 112 101 104 105 1041999/2000 103 91 114 116 109 1052000/2001 103 94 112 125 115 1072001/2002 105 91 115 132 118 1102002/2003 106 85 110 142 121 112

Newfoundland and Labrador1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 101 74 83 103 85 921999/2000 100 44 92 112 70 832000/2001 98 44 88 113 69 822001/2002 102 44 109 122 74 862002/2003 102 45 98 120 73 86

Prince Edward Island1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 113 95 80 107 96 1051999/2000 111 62 81 117 86 982000/2001 113 59 78 127 87 1002001/2002 114 54 86 134 90 1022002/2003 110 60 105 149 102 106

Nova Scotia1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 111 101 123 111 110 1101999/2000 115 53 136 127 108 1122000/2001 102 64 133 132 113 1072001/2002 101 56 139 136 114 1072002/2003 104 41 139 146 116 109

New Brunswick1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 102 94 116 99 99 1011999/2000 102 94 94 103 99 1012000/2001 94 125 106 108 114 1022001/2002 95 120 118 110 114 1032002/2003 95 75 116 117 102 98

Quebec1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 101 162 100 100 111 1051999/2000 109 104 100 109 105 1082000/2001 111 111 104 115 111 1112001/2002 117 107 105 126 116 1172002/2003 114 112 101 140 122 118

Ontario1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 96 98 107 103 1031999/2000 99 85 137 119 116 1042000/2001 97 79 118 128 116 1032001/2002 97 71 122 134 119 1042002/2003 99 65 114 143 122 106

Manitoba1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 116 101 110 110 1051999/2000 105 98 112 116 111 1072000/2001 106 108 120 124 119 1102001/2002 106 112 119 128 123 1112002/2003 111 107 128 137 128 116

213

Chapter B tables B1


Table B.1.2

Indices of change in combined public and private expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100) (concluded)



indexSaskatchewan1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 102 109 102 99 102 1021999/2000 101 115 100 113 113 1062000/2001 103 117 112 122 120 1092001/2002 102 116 115 131 125 1112002/2003 109 102 117 142 127 116

Alberta1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 109 119 109 107 111 1101999/2000 107 96 134 125 117 1112000/2001 109 114 156 145 137 1202001/2002 114 113 154 150 139 1232002/2003 118 102 148 154 137 125

British Columbia1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 102 99 102 101 100 1011999/2000 103 105 93 114 107 1052000/2001 107 109 92 131 118 1112001/2002 110 111 103 134 121 1142002/2003 109 98 99 148 124 115

Yukon3

1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 92 102 91 106 100 941999/2000 96 162 100 104 138 1072000/2001 94 147 106 132 135 1042001/2002 99 160 116 120 143 1102002/2003 102 151 106 104 133 110


1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 100 100 100 100 100 1002000/2001 98 96 106 84 100 992001/2002 115 106 115 77 108 1122002/2003 121 110 120 87 113 118

Nunavut1,3

1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 100 100 100 100 100 1002000/2001 98 120 2 97 111 112 1042001/2002 104 148 2 75 177 123 1122002/2003 108 141 2 95 222 126 115

1. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a breakin series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000 (1999/2000 = 100).

2. These indices are slightly over-estimated as the only college in Nunavut did not report tuition fees (part of private expenditure) for the trade-vocationalportion until 2000/2001.

3. Although there are no universities in the territories, there are expenditures at the university level including student aid as well as administrativeexpenditures. These expenditures are also included in the provincial data.

Note: Large year-over-year variations in public and private funding to school boards are caused by accounting adjustments to prior-year surpluses and/ordeficits. This means that trends should be observed over a period of years rather than from one year to the next.



214

B1


Table B.1.3

Percentage distribution of combined public and private expenditure on education, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003

Pre-elementary, Allelementary- Trade- post-

secondary vocational College University secondary Total

percentageCanada1997/1998 62.2 9.5 7.8 20.4 37.8 100.01998/1999 61.7 10.3 7.6 20.5 38.3 100.01999/2000 60.9 8.2 8.4 22.5 39.1 100.02000/2001 59.6 8.4 8.2 23.9 40.4 100.02001/2002 59.4 7.9 8.2 24.5 40.6 100.02002/2003 59.1 7.2 7.7 26.0 40.9 100.0

Newfoundland and Labrador1997/1998 44.4 33.9 2.9 18.8 55.6 100.01998/1999 48.7 27.5 2.6 21.2 51.3 100.01999/2000 53.5 18.0 3.2 25.3 46.5 100.02000/2001 52.9 18.1 3.1 25.8 47.1 100.02001/2002 52.5 17.3 3.6 26.6 47.5 100.02002/2003 52.7 17.8 3.3 26.3 47.3 100.0

Prince Edward Island1997/1998 49.9 21.4 10.8 18.0 50.1 100.01998/1999 54.0 19.4 8.2 18.4 46.0 100.01999/2000 56.3 13.5 8.8 21.4 43.7 100.02000/2001 56.3 12.6 8.4 22.8 43.7 100.02001/2002 55.9 11.4 9.1 23.7 44.1 100.02002/2003 51.9 12.2 10.6 25.3 48.1 100.0

Nova Scotia1997/1998 55.3 12.3 4.4 27.9 44.7 100.01998/1999 55.6 11.3 4.9 28.2 44.4 100.01999/2000 56.9 5.8 5.4 31.9 43.1 100.02000/2001 52.8 7.4 5.5 34.4 47.2 100.02001/2002 52.4 6.4 5.7 35.4 47.6 100.02002/2003 52.5 4.6 5.6 37.2 47.5 100.0

New Brunswick1997/1998 58.4 14.7 4.6 22.3 41.6 100.01998/1999 59.0 13.7 5.3 21.9 41.0 100.01999/2000 59.3 13.7 4.3 22.8 40.7 100.02000/2001 53.8 17.9 4.8 23.5 46.2 100.02001/2002 53.9 17.0 5.3 23.7 46.1 100.02002/2003 56.8 11.3 5.5 26.5 43.2 100.0

Quebec1997/1998 55.2 7.8 14.3 22.7 44.8 100.01998/1999 52.9 12.0 13.5 21.6 47.1 100.01999/2000 56.1 7.5 13.3 23.1 43.9 100.02000/2001 55.2 7.8 13.4 23.6 44.8 100.02001/2002 55.6 7.2 12.9 24.4 44.4 100.02002/2003 53.4 7.4 12.3 26.9 46.6 100.0

Ontario1997/1998 68.2 6.6 6.0 19.2 31.8 100.01998/1999 68.3 6.1 5.7 19.9 31.7 100.01999/2000 64.7 5.4 7.9 22.0 35.3 100.02000/2001 64.1 5.1 6.9 23.9 35.9 100.02001/2002 63.6 4.5 7.0 24.9 36.4 100.02002/2003 63.6 4.0 6.4 25.9 36.4 100.0

215

Chapter B tables B1


Table B.1.3

Percentage distribution of combined public and private expenditure on education, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (concluded)

Pre-elementary, Allelementary- Trade- post-

secondary vocational College University secondary Total

percentageManitoba1997/1998 68.5 8.6 3.9 19.1 31.5 100.01998/1999 67.1 9.4 3.7 19.8 32.9 100.01999/2000 67.4 7.9 4.0 20.7 32.6 100.02000/2001 66.0 8.4 4.2 21.4 34.0 100.02001/2002 65.2 8.6 4.1 22.1 34.8 100.02002/2003 65.4 7.9 4.2 22.5 34.6 100.0

Saskatchewan1997/1998 61.8 12.0 2.7 23.5 38.2 100.01998/1999 61.6 12.8 2.7 22.9 38.4 100.01999/2000 59.1 13.1 2.6 25.2 40.9 100.02000/2001 58.1 12.8 2.8 26.3 41.9 100.02001/2002 57.0 12.5 2.8 27.7 43.0 100.02002/2003 58.0 10.5 2.8 28.7 42.0 100.0

Alberta1997/1998 62.1 12.1 7.0 18.8 37.9 100.01998/1999 61.6 13.2 7.0 18.2 38.4 100.01999/2000 60.0 10.5 8.4 21.1 40.0 100.02000/2001 56.8 11.5 9.1 22.6 43.2 100.02001/2002 57.3 11.1 8.7 22.9 42.7 100.02002/2003 58.7 9.9 8.3 23.1 41.3 100.0

British Columbia1997/1998 61.5 11.5 7.1 19.9 38.5 100.01998/1999 61.9 11.2 7.1 19.8 38.1 100.01999/2000 60.5 11.5 6.3 21.7 39.5 100.02000/2001 59.2 11.3 5.8 23.6 40.8 100.02001/2002 59.2 11.1 6.4 23.3 40.8 100.02002/2003 58.4 9.8 6.1 25.6 41.6 100.0

Yukon1997/1998 74.7 15.5 6.7 3.1 25.3 100.01998/1999 73.2 16.8 6.4 3.5 26.8 100.01999/2000 67.2 23.5 6.3 3.0 32.8 100.02000/2001 67.4 21.8 6.8 4.0 32.6 100.02001/2002 67.1 22.4 7.0 3.4 32.9 100.02002/2003 69.4 21.2 6.4 3.0 30.6 100.0

Northwest Territories1

1997/1998 71.4 12.9 14.4 1.3 28.6 100.01998/1999 70.3 14.4 13.8 1.5 29.7 100.01999/2000 60.7 19.4 17.4 2.5 39.3 100.02000/2001 60.2 18.9 18.7 2.1 39.8 100.02001/2002 62.1 18.4 17.7 1.7 37.9 100.02002/2003 62.3 18.2 17.7 1.8 37.7 100.0

Nunavut1

1997/1998 … ... ... ... ... ...1998/1999 … ... ... ... ... ...1999/2000 59.7 25.3 2 14.4 0.6 40.3 100.02000/2001 56.5 29.4 13.5 0.6 43.5 100.02001/2002 55.8 33.6 9.7 0.9 44.2 100.02002/2003 56.1 31.0 11.8 1.1 43.9 100.0

1. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a breakin series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.

2. Slightly underestimated as tuition fees (part of private expenditure) for the trade-vocational portion not reported for the only college in Nunavut in1999/2000.



216

B1


Table B.1.4

Combined public and private expenditure on education per capita and index of change, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (in 2001 constant dollars)

Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T.1 Nvt.1

2001 constant dollarsExpenditureper capita

1997/1998 2,164 2,440 2,014 1,925 2,067 2,042 2,209 2,256 2,316 2,201 2,075 3,709 … …1998/1999 2,235 2,286 2,111 2,126 2,085 2,144 2,256 2,376 2,362 2,358 2,084 3,549 … …1999/2000 2,242 2,095 1,980 2,145 2,092 2,181 2,248 2,400 2,452 2,345 2,136 4,091 4,951 5,5142000/2001 2,260 2,087 2,007 2,059 2,124 2,234 2,181 2,468 2,558 2,483 2,249 4,044 4,901 5,5842001/2002 2,296 2,222 2,048 2,061 2,138 2,342 2,166 2,471 2,615 2,513 2,299 4,309 5,531 5,8672002/2003 2,305 2,233 2,116 2,102 2,029 2,345 2,179 2,576 2,748 2,499 2,285 4,311 5,709 5,938

Index of change(1997/1998 = 100)

1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 … …1998/1999 103 94 105 110 101 105 102 105 102 107 100 96 … …1999/2000 104 86 98 111 101 107 102 106 106 107 103 110 100 1002000/2001 104 86 100 107 103 109 99 109 110 113 108 109 99 1012001/2002 106 91 102 107 103 115 98 110 113 114 111 116 112 1062002/2003 107 91 105 109 98 115 99 114 119 114 110 116 115 108

1. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.in 1999/2000 (1999/2000=100).

Notes: Data in this table have been revised in comparison with data presented in 2005 PCEIP Report (Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers ofEducation, Canada. 2005. Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE.Ottawa.).Large year-over-year variations in public and private funding to school boards are caused by accounting adjustments to prior-year surpluses and/ordeficits. This means that trends should be observed over a period of years rather than from one year to the next.

Sources: Expenditure: Table B.1.1.Population: Annual Demographic Statistics, Catalogue no. 91-213-XPB, Statistics Canada.

Table B.1.5

Combined public and private expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP and index of change,Canada and jurisdictions, 1999/2000 to 2002/2003


Expenditure as apercentage of GDP

1999/2000 6.6 8.8 8.0 8.2 7.9 7.2 6.0 8.2 7.6 5.6 6.8 11.1 8.5 19.12000/2001 6.3 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.8 7.1 5.6 8.1 7.4 5.0 6.8 10.1 7.8 18.12001/2002 6.4 8.2 8.2 7.4 7.8 7.5 5.7 8.1 7.9 5.1 7.0 10.3 7.6 18.82002/2003 6.4 7.2 8.0 7.5 7.4 7.4 5.6 8.3 8.2 5.3 7.0 10.4 8.0 18.5

Index of change(1999-2000 = 100)

1999/2000 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1002000/2001 95 89 99 93 99 99 94 99 97 90 99 91 91 952001/2002 98 93 102 90 99 104 95 99 103 91 103 93 89 982002/2003 97 82 101 91 95 102 94 101 107 96 102 94 95 96

Note: Data in this table have been revised in comparison with data presented in 2005 PCEIP Report (Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers ofEducation, Canada. 2005. Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE.Ottawa.).

Sources: Expenditure: Table B.1.1.GDP: Appendix 3 in 2007 PCEIP Handbook (Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators inCanada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).

217

B2Chapter B tables


Table B.2.1

Public expenditure1 on education, health, social services, and non-social programs, Canada, 1989/1990 to 2005/2006(in 2001 constant dollars)

Elementary- Post-secondary secondary Other Total, Social Non-social Totaleducation education education education Health services2 programs3 expenditure

Expenditure in millions of 2001 constant dollars

1989/1990 31,707 19,963 2,402 54,071 50,655 91,184 179,586 375,4971990/1991 33,471 20,893 2,496 56,860 52,919 96,252 184,620 390,6521991/1992 36,502 22,156 2,815 61,472 57,018 107,818 188,218 414,5261992/1993 37,998 22,888 3,360 64,246 58,327 112,130 184,001 418,7041993/1994 37,941 22,906 3,278 64,126 58,903 115,423 182,516 420,9681994/1995 38,158 22,642 3,773 64,573 57,839 108,768 186,530 417,7111995/1996 36,967 22,726 3,519 63,213 58,346 106,809 190,405 418,7721996/1997 36,217 21,564 2,829 60,610 57,937 106,698 177,825 403,0701997/1998 35,941 22,037 3,112 61,091 60,931 106,626 171,426 400,0741998/1999 35,551 23,395 3,808 62,754 62,421 107,657 174,466 407,2981999/2000 36,664 24,169 4,311 65,145 72,265 112,959 185,035 435,4052000/2001 36,635 25,352 4,231 66,218 76,998 114,801 179,766 437,7832001/2002 36,410 23,537 4,139 64,518 82,017 114,231 178,719 439,4852002/2003 36,759 25,778 4,236 66,773 78,549 111,540 175,125 431,9882003/2004 37,407 25,998 4,494 67,900 83,414 112,999 176,266 440,5782004/2005 40,034 29,826 4,705 74,564 91,569 117,725 179,604 463,4622005/2006 40,436 30,603 4,636 75,676 93,528 119,917 181,801 470,921

Percentage distribution of expenditure by program

1989/1990 8.4 5.3 0.6 14.4 13.5 24.3 47.8 100.01990/1991 8.6 5.3 0.6 14.6 13.5 24.6 47.3 100.01991/1992 8.8 5.3 0.7 14.8 13.8 26.0 45.4 100.01992/1993 9.1 5.5 0.8 15.3 13.9 26.8 43.9 100.01993/1994 9.0 5.4 0.8 15.2 14.0 27.4 43.4 100.01994/1995 9.1 5.4 0.9 15.5 13.8 26.0 44.7 100.01995/1996 8.8 5.4 0.8 15.1 13.9 25.5 45.5 100.01996/1997 9.0 5.3 0.7 15.0 14.4 26.5 44.1 100.01997/1998 9.0 5.5 0.8 15.3 15.2 26.7 42.8 100.01998/1999 8.7 5.7 0.9 15.4 15.3 26.4 42.8 100.01999/2000 8.4 5.6 1.0 15.0 16.6 25.9 42.5 100.02000/2001 8.4 5.8 1.0 15.1 17.6 26.2 41.1 100.02001/2002 8.3 5.4 0.9 14.7 18.7 26.0 40.7 100.02002/2003 8.5 6.0 1.0 15.5 18.2 25.8 40.5 100.02003/2004 8.5 5.9 1.0 15.4 18.9 25.6 40.0 100.02004/2005 8.6 6.4 1.0 16.1 19.8 25.4 38.8 100.02005/2006 8.6 6.5 1.0 16.1 19.9 25.5 38.6 100.0

1. Includes expenditure by federal, provincial/territorial and local levels of government.2. Social assistance; Workers’ Compensation benefits; employee pension plan benefits and changes in equity; veterans’ benefits; motor vehicle accident

compensation; and other social services.3. General government services; protection of persons and property; transportation and communication; resource conservation and industrial development;

environment; recreation and culture; labour, employment and immigration; housing; foreign affairs and international assistance; regional planning anddevelopment; research establishments; general purpose transfers to other government subsectors; debt charges; and other expenditure.

Note: Data in this table allow comparisons across government programs, but are not directly comparable with the data on public expenditure in educationpresented in other tables.

Source: Public Institutions Division, Statistics Canada.

Tables B2


218

B2


Table B.2.2

Public expenditure1 on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars)



millions of 2001 constant dollarsCanada2

1997/1998 37,169 5,633 4,008 8,811 18,451 55,6201998/1999 38,402 6,322 4,064 9,185 19,570 57,9721999/2000 38,349 5,082 4,585 10,302 19,969 58,3182000/2001 37,985 5,219 4,334 10,843 20,397 58,3812001/2002 38,681 5,033 4,387 10,856 20,276 58,9572002/2003 39,143 4,533 4,354 11,489 20,375 59,519

Newfoundland and Labrador3

1997/1998 574 435 25 179 640 1,2141998/1999 587 328 24 185 537 1,1231999/2000 576 188 34 198 419 9962000/2001 559 186 32 200 418 9772001/2002 584 184 38 213 435 1,0192002/2003 579 185 35 219 439 1,018


1997/1998 135 52 16 38 106 2421998/1999 154 48 14 38 100 2541999/2000 149 29 14 36 79 2282000/2001 151 29 15 41 84 2352001/2002 154 27 17 41 84 2382002/2003 148 30 20 62 112 260

Nova Scotia

1997/1998 950 210 67 284 562 1,5121998/1999 1,071 215 80 308 603 1,6741999/2000 1,116 104 92 336 532 1,6482000/2001 977 127 90 341 559 1,5352001/2002 968 111 94 326 531 1,4992002/2003 990 79 94 325 499 1,488

New Brunswick4

1997/1998 893 215 60 242 516 1,4091998/1999 908 207 70 223 500 1,4081999/2000 915 204 49 237 491 1,4062000/2001 844 273 61 248 582 1,4252001/2002 848 262 71 247 580 1,4282002/2003 848 157 67 257 481 1,329

Quebec5

1997/1998 7,356 1,103 1,894 2,521 5,518 12,8741998/1999 7,398 1,812 1,864 2,674 6,350 13,7481999/2000 8,026 1,137 1,862 2,616 5,616 13,6422000/2001 8,088 1,238 1,949 2,845 6,032 14,1202001/2002 8,641 1,174 1,941 3,047 6,161 14,8022002/2003 8,351 1,237 1,893 3,335 6,465 14,816

219

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.2

Public expenditure1 on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars) (continued)




1997/1998 15,882 1,512 1,013 2,859 5,384 21,2651998/1999 16,485 1,412 1,050 2,972 5,434 21,9191999/2000 15,708 1,298 1,486 3,764 6,548 22,2562000/2001 15,164 1,165 1,105 3,607 5,877 21,0412001/2002 14,958 1,060 1,096 3,419 5,574 20,5332002/2003 15,433 848 1,117 3,536 5,502 20,934

Manitoba

1997/1998 1,624 201 89 349 639 2,2631998/1999 1,675 233 87 372 692 2,3671999/2000 1,710 197 95 403 695 2,4062000/2001 1,739 219 101 446 766 2,5052001/2002 1,714 223 102 413 738 2,4522002/2003 1,809 206 102 439 747 2,556

Saskatchewan

1997/1998 1,434 262 58 374 694 2,1281998/1999 1,422 287 59 389 736 2,1581999/2000 1,433 307 58 428 792 2,2262000/2001 1,439 313 66 511 889 2,3292001/2002 1,455 304 66 484 853 2,3082002/2003 1,517 266 67 488 821 2,339

Alberta

1997/1998 3,418 636 299 813 1,748 5,1651998/1999 3,712 749 305 837 1,891 5,6021999/2000 3,689 598 395 959 1,952 5,6412000/2001 3,832 666 416 1,029 2,112 5,9442001/2002 3,977 658 417 1,119 2,194 6,1712002/2003 4,120 611 426 1,128 2,165 6,285

British Columbia

1997/1998 4,575 795 436 1,065 2,296 6,8701998/1999 4,645 794 459 1,095 2,348 6,9931999/2000 4,714 859 437 1,231 2,526 7,2412000/2001 4,886 893 437 1,483 2,812 7,6992001/2002 5,047 909 486 1,447 2,842 7,8892002/2003 4,995 791 469 1,607 2,867 7,862

Yukon6

1997/1998 85 15 7 4 25 1101998/1999 78 17 6 4 27 1051999/2000 83 27 7 4 38 1212000/2001 81 25 8 5 37 1182001/2002 86 26 8 4 39 1252002/2003 89 24 7 4 35 124


220

B2


Table B.2.2

Public expenditure1 on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars) (concluded)



millions of 2001 constant dollarsNorthwest Territories6, 7

1997/1998 219 39 42 4 84 3031998/1999 217 44 42 5 91 3071999/2000 120 38 32 5 75 1952000/2001 115 36 33 4 73 1882001/2002 137 40 36 4 80 2172002/2003 144 42 38 4 84 229

Nunavut6, 7

1997/1998 … … … … ... ...1998/1999 … … … … ... ...1999/2000 86 37 21 1 59 1452000/2001 86 44 20 1 65 1512001/2002 90 55 15 2 71 1612002/2003 90 52 19 2 73 163

1. Includes expenditure by federal, provincial/territorial and local levels of government.2. The data shown at the Canada level include Canada’s spending on education in foreign countries (e.g., Department of National Defence schools), and

undistributed expenditure.3. The decline in expenditure in Newfoundland and Labrador was in fact a return to “normal” expenditure level after a significant but short-term funding

increase in the mid-1990s; notably, for the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy.4. Although the decrease in public expenditure in New Brunswick in 2000/2001, 2001/2002, and 2002/2003 reflects a change in employer contributions

to teachers’ pension plans, the actual data for 2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 for New Brunswick show an increase in expenditure for schooldistrict operations at the elementary/secondary level in all three years.

5. Expenditure at the elementary-secondary level in Quebec includes trade-vocational expenditure administered through the elementary-secondary system.6. Although there are no universities in the territories, there are expenditures at the university level including student aid as well as administrative

expenditures. These expenditures are also included in the provincial data.7. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a break

in series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.Note: Large year-over-year variations in public and private funding to school boards are caused by accounting adjustments to prior-year surpluses and/or


Survey of Financial Statistics of Private Elementary and Secondary Schools, Statistics Canada.Survey of Federal Government Expenditures in Support of Education, Statistics Canada.Survey of Financial Information of Universities and Colleges, Statistics Canada.Financial Statistics of Community Colleges and Vocational Schools, Statistics Canada.Provincial Expenditures on Education in Reform and Correctional Institutions, Statistics Canada.Provincial Public Accounts.

221

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.3

Indices of change in public expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100)



indexCanada1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 112 101 104 106 1041999/2000 103 90 114 117 108 1052000/2001 102 93 108 123 111 1052001/2002 104 89 109 123 110 1062002/2003 105 80 109 130 110 107



Nova Scotia1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 113 102 120 108 107 1111999/2000 117 49 137 118 95 1092000/2001 103 60 134 120 99 1022001/2002 102 53 139 115 95 992002/2003 104 38 140 114 89 98

New Brunswick1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 102 96 117 92 97 1001999/2000 103 95 83 98 95 1002000/2001 95 127 102 102 113 1012001/2002 95 122 119 102 112 1012002/2003 95 73 113 106 93 94

Quebec1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 101 164 98 106 115 1071999/2000 109 103 98 104 102 1062000/2001 110 112 103 113 109 1102001/2002 117 106 102 121 112 1152002/2003 114 112 100 132 117 115

Ontario1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 104 93 104 104 101 1031999/2000 99 86 147 132 122 1052000/2001 95 77 109 126 109 992001/2002 94 70 108 120 104 972002/2003 97 56 110 124 102 98

Manitoba1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 116 98 107 108 1051999/2000 105 98 107 116 109 1062000/2001 107 109 114 128 120 1112001/2002 106 111 115 118 116 1082002/2003 111 103 114 126 117 113


222

B2


Table B.2.3

Indices of change in public expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100) (concluded)




Alberta1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 109 118 102 103 108 1081999/2000 108 94 132 118 112 1092000/2001 112 105 139 127 121 1152001/2002 116 103 140 138 126 1192002/2003 121 96 143 139 124 122


Yukon1

1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 92 108 95 106 105 951999/2000 98 179 105 103 149 1102000/2001 96 164 114 132 146 1072001/2002 101 174 122 120 153 1132002/2003 105 158 106 104 137 112


1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 100 100 100 100 100 1002000/2001 96 96 103 84 98 972001/2002 114 106 113 77 107 1112002/2003 120 110 120 87 113 117

Nunavut1,2

1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 100 100 100 100 100 1002000/2001 101 119 96 111 111 1052001/2002 105 146 74 177 121 1122002/2003 106 139 91 222 124 113

1. Although there are no universities in the territories, there are expenditures at the university level including student aid as well as administrativeexpenditures. These expenditures are also included in the provincial data.

2. Since the series for Nunavut starts in 1999/2000, the calculation for Northwest Territories and Nunavut is for the period 1999/2000 to 2002/2003 only(1999/2000 = 100).



223

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.4

Private expenditure on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars)



millions of 2001 constant dollarsCanada

1997/1998 3,043 535 1,059 4,403 5,998 9,0371998/1999 3,144 588 1,035 4,593 6,216 9,3601999/2000 3,151 505 1,172 5,014 6,691 9,8422000/2001 3,319 589 1,333 5,737 7,659 10,9782001/2002 3,613 599 1,437 6,609 8,645 12,2582002/2003 3,573 683 1,239 7,310 9,231 12,804


1997/1998 24 20 13 73 107 1311998/1999 15 11 8 76 96 1111999/2000 21 14 2 85 101 1222000/2001 24 14 2 85 100 1252001/2002 25 17 4 95 116 1412002/2003 33 21 3 86 109 142


1997/1998 1 7 13 11 31 331998/1999 1 7 10 15 32 331999/2000 2 7 10 22 39 412000/2001 3 6 8 22 36 392001/2002 3 5 9 25 39 422002/2003 2 6 11 11 28 30

Nova Scotia

1997/1998 43 10 12 218 240 2841998/1999 31 9 17 251 276 3071999/2000 23 13 16 303 332 3562000/2001 38 15 15 320 350 3882001/2002 38 12 17 355 384 4222002/2003 43 12 17 405 434 477

New Brunswick

1997/1998 17 14 12 104 130 1471998/1999 17 8 13 120 141 1581999/2000 15 11 18 121 149 1652000/2001 14 13 15 126 154 1692001/2002 16 11 14 134 159 1752002/2003 16 15 16 147 177 193

Quebec

1997/1998 846 52 232 849 1,133 1,9791998/1999 871 62 255 710 1,026 1,8981999/2000 941 61 255 1,070 1,386 2,3272000/2001 980 49 252 1,038 1,339 2,3192001/2002 988 66 286 1,184 1,536 2,5242002/2003 967 60 251 1,368 1,679 2,646


224

B2


Table B.2.4

Private expenditure on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars) (continued)




1997/1998 1,029 125 475 1,905 2,505 3,5341998/1999 1,015 159 409 2,138 2,706 3,7211999/2000 1,032 100 553 1,924 2,577 3,6092000/2001 1,164 129 654 2,496 3,278 4,4422001/2002 1,433 106 712 2,987 3,805 5,2382002/2003 1,348 219 575 3,289 4,083 5,431

Manitoba

1997/1998 131 19 10 140 169 3001998/1999 138 22 12 163 198 3361999/2000 137 19 15 165 199 3372000/2001 131 19 18 160 196 3272001/2002 140 23 15 214 253 3932002/2003 138 29 25 230 283 421

Saskatchewan

1997/1998 22 21 7 180 208 2301998/1999 57 20 6 162 188 2451999/2000 38 19 7 198 225 2622000/2001 59 17 6 167 190 2492001/2002 35 24 9 240 272 3072002/2003 72 22 8 297 327 398

Alberta

1997/1998 452 119 137 355 611 1,0641998/1999 500 152 172 409 733 1,2331999/2000 464 128 188 502 818 1,2832000/2001 402 192 264 659 1,115 1,5172001/2002 424 195 255 637 1,086 1,5102002/2003 448 162 221 672 1,055 1,504

British Columbia

1997/1998 468 143 143 568 854 1,3231998/1999 494 135 130 550 815 1,3091999/2000 471 128 104 625 856 1,3272000/2001 497 133 93 664 890 1,3872001/2002 505 135 112 738 984 1,4892002/2003 498 133 106 804 1,043 1,541

Yukon

1997/1998 3 3 1 .. 4 81998/1999 3 2 1 .. 3 61999/2000 1 2 1 .. 3 52000/2001 2 2 1 .. 3 52001/2002 1 3 1 .. 4 52002/2003 1 3 1 .. 5 6

225

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.4

Private expenditure on education, by level of education, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003(in millions of 2001 constant dollars) (concluded)



millions of 2001 constant dollarsNorthwest Territories2

1997/1998 2 1 3 … 4 61998/1999 2 1 1 … 2 31999/2000 2 1 3 .. 4 62000/2001 5 1 4 .. 5 102001/2002 3 1 4 .. 5 82002/2003 3 1 4 .. 5 8

Nunavut2

1997/1998 ... ... ... ... ... ...1998/1999 ... ... ... ... ... ...1999/2000 3 e .. 3 1 .. 1 ..2000/2001 <1 e 1 1 .. 2 22001/2002 2 e 1 1 .. 2 42002/2003 5 e 1 2 .. 2 7

1. Expenditure on private business colleges is not included.2. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a break

in series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.3. The only college in Nunavut started reporting tuition fees (part of private expenditure) for the trade-vocational portion in 2000/2001.Note: Large year-over-year variations in public and private funding to school boards are caused by accounting adjustments to prior-year surpluses and/or


Survey of Financial Statistics of Private Elementary and Secondary Schools, Statistics Canada.Survey of Financial Information of Universities and Colleges, Statistics Canada.Financial Statistics of Community Colleges and Vocational Schools, Statistics Canada.


226

B2


Table B.2.5

Indices of change in private expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100)



indexCanada1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 110 98 104 104 1041999/2000 104 94 111 114 112 1092000/2001 109 110 126 130 128 1212001/2002 119 112 136 150 144 1362002/2003 117 127 117 166 154 142



Nova Scotia1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 71 82 139 115 115 1081999/2000 54 128 132 139 138 1252000/2001 88 143 126 147 146 1372001/2002 89 117 135 163 160 1492002/2003 99 114 134 186 181 168

New Brunswick1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 100 59 109 115 108 1071999/2000 93 78 146 116 115 1122000/2001 85 92 127 121 119 1152001/2002 98 77 114 129 122 1192002/2003 97 106 129 141 136 132

Quebec1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 103 119 110 84 91 961999/2000 111 118 110 126 122 1182000/2001 116 94 109 122 118 1172001/2002 117 127 123 139 136 1282002/2003 114 115 108 161 148 134

Ontario1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 99 127 86 112 108 1051999/2000 100 80 116 101 103 1022000/2001 113 103 138 131 131 1262001/2002 139 85 150 157 152 1482002/2003 131 175 121 173 163 154

Manitoba1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 105 113 122 117 117 1121999/2000 105 99 151 118 118 1122000/2001 100 97 177 114 116 1092001/2002 107 118 153 153 149 1312002/2003 105 147 252 164 168 140

227

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.5

Indices of change in private expenditure on education, in 2001 constant dollars, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (1997/1998 = 100) (concluded)




Alberta1997/1998 100 100 100 100 100 1001998/1999 111 128 125 115 120 1161999/2000 103 108 137 141 134 1212000/2001 89 162 192 185 182 1432001/2002 94 164 185 179 178 1422002/2003 99 137 161 189 173 141


Yukon1997/1998 100 100 100 .. 100 1001998/1999 78 70 70 .. 70 731999/2000 40 76 75 .. 76 602000/2001 55 65 65 .. 65 602001/2002 43 89 85 .. 88 682002/2003 42 113 107 .. 112 81


1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 100 100 100 .. 100 1002000/2001 218 105 142 .. 131 1602001/2002 163 106 128 .. 122 1352002/2003 149 112 120 .. 118 128

Nunavut2

1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 100 e .. 100 .. 100 ..2000/2001 17 e 100 144 .. 222 1002001/2002 78 e 126 111 .. 213 1732002/2003 199 e 115 224 .. 310 357

1. Expenditure on private business colleges is not included.2. Since the series for Nunavut starts in 1999/2000, the calculation for Northwest Territories and Nunavut is for the period 1999/2000 to 2002/2003 only

(1999/2000 = 100). In the case of Nunavut at the trade-vocational level, as the only college started reporting tuition fees (part of private expenditure) forthe trade-vocational portion in 2000/2001, the index calculation is for the period 2000/2001 to 2002/2003 only (2000/2001 = 100).




228

B2


Table B.2.6

Private expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on education, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003



percentageCanada1997/1998 7.6 8.7 20.9 33.3 24.5 14.01998/1999 7.6 8.5 20.3 33.3 24.1 13.91999/2000 7.6 9.0 20.4 32.7 25.1 14.42000/2001 8.0 10.1 23.5 34.6 27.3 15.82001/2002 8.5 10.6 24.7 37.8 29.9 17.22002/2003 8.4 13.1 22.1 38.9 31.2 17.7

Newfoundland and Labrador1997/1998 4.0 4.4 34.1 29.1 14.3 9.71998/1999 2.4 3.4 26.2 29.2 15.2 9.01999/2000 3.5 6.8 4.8 30.1 19.4 10.92000/2001 4.2 6.8 5.2 29.9 19.4 11.32001/2002 4.0 8.5 9.3 30.9 21.1 12.12002/2003 5.3 10.0 8.3 28.1 19.9 12.2

Prince Edward Island1997/1998 1.1 11.4 45.2 22.5 22.6 11.91998/1999 0.8 12.9 42.2 27.7 24.1 11.51999/2000 1.6 19.5 41.2 38.3 33.1 15.42000/2001 2.1 16.8 34.8 34.9 29.7 14.12001/2002 1.7 16.3 34.6 38.4 31.9 15.02002/2003 1.4 16.2 35.3 15.1 19.9 10.3

Nova Scotia1997/1998 4.4 4.7 15.5 43.4 30.0 15.81998/1999 2.8 3.8 17.5 44.9 31.4 15.51999/2000 2.0 11.4 15.0 47.4 38.4 17.72000/2001 3.8 10.5 14.6 48.4 38.5 20.22001/2002 3.8 9.8 15.1 52.1 41.9 22.02002/2003 4.1 13.1 14.9 55.5 46.5 24.3

New Brunswick1997/1998 1.8 6.1 16.8 30.1 20.1 9.41998/1999 1.8 3.8 15.8 34.9 22.0 10.11999/2000 1.7 5.1 26.3 33.7 23.3 10.52000/2001 1.6 4.5 20.2 33.8 21.0 10.62001/2002 1.9 3.9 16.3 35.2 21.5 10.92002/2003 1.9 8.6 18.8 36.4 26.9 12.7

Quebec1997/1998 10.3 4.5 10.9 25.2 17.0 13.31998/1999 10.5 3.3 12.0 21.0 13.9 12.11999/2000 10.5 5.1 12.0 29.0 19.8 14.62000/2001 10.8 3.8 11.4 26.7 18.2 14.12001/2002 10.3 5.3 12.8 28.0 20.0 14.62002/2003 10.4 4.6 11.7 29.1 20.6 15.2

Ontario1997/1998 6.1 7.6 31.9 40.0 31.8 14.21998/1999 5.8 10.1 28.0 41.8 33.2 14.51999/2000 6.2 7.2 27.1 33.8 28.2 14.02000/2001 7.1 9.9 37.2 40.9 35.8 17.42001/2002 8.7 9.1 39.4 46.6 40.6 20.32002/2003 8.0 20.5 34.0 48.2 42.6 20.6

Manitoba1997/1998 7.5 8.9 10.0 28.6 20.9 11.71998/1999 7.6 8.6 12.2 30.5 22.2 12.41999/2000 7.4 9.0 13.5 29.0 22.3 12.32000/2001 7.0 8.0 14.8 26.3 20.4 11.52001/2002 7.6 9.4 12.9 34.2 25.5 13.82002/2003 7.1 12.2 19.7 34.3 27.5 14.1

229

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.6

Private expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on education, by level of education,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 (concluded)



percentageSaskatchewan

1997/1998 1.5 7.5 10.4 32.4 23.0 9.71998/1999 3.9 6.5 9.7 29.4 20.3 10.21999/2000 2.6 6.0 11.0 31.6 22.1 10.52000/2001 3.9 5.1 8.9 24.6 17.6 9.72001/2002 2.4 7.3 11.6 33.1 24.2 11.72002/2003 4.5 7.5 10.9 37.8 28.5 14.6

Alberta

1997/1998 11.7 15.7 31.5 30.4 25.9 17.11998/1999 11.9 16.8 36.0 32.9 27.9 18.01999/2000 11.2 17.6 32.3 34.4 29.5 18.52000/2001 9.5 22.4 38.8 39.0 34.6 20.32001/2002 9.6 22.8 37.9 36.3 33.1 19.72002/2003 9.8 21.0 34.1 37.3 32.8 19.3

British Columbia

1997/1998 9.3 15.3 24.7 34.8 27.1 16.11998/1999 9.6 14.6 22.1 33.4 25.8 15.81999/2000 9.1 12.9 19.2 33.7 25.3 15.52000/2001 9.2 12.9 17.6 30.9 24.0 15.32001/2002 9.1 12.9 18.7 33.8 25.7 15.92002/2003 9.1 14.4 18.4 33.4 26.7 16.4

Yukon

1997/1998 3.9 16.5 16.4 .. 14.4 6.51998/1999 3.3 11.3 12.6 .. 10.1 5.11999/2000 1.6 7.8 12.3 .. 7.9 3.72000/2001 2.2 7.3 10.0 .. 6.9 3.82001/2002 1.7 9.2 12.0 .. 8.8 4.02002/2003 1.6 12.4 16.5 .. 12.1 4.8


1997/1998 1.1 3.3 6.3 .. 4.6 2.11998/1999 0.7 2.1 2.0 .. 1.9 1.11999/2000 1.7 3.1 8.5 .. 5.3 3.12000/2001 3.8 3.3 11.4 .. 7.0 5.02001/2002 2.4 3.0 9.5 .. 6.0 3.72002/2003 2.1 3.1 8.6 .. 5.5 3.4

Nunavut2,3

1997/1998 … … … … … …1998/1999 … … … … … …1999/2000 2.9 .. 3.3 .. 1.2 ..2000/2001 0.5 1.4 4.8 .. 2.5 1.42001/2002 2.2 1.5 4.8 .. 2.2 2.22002/2003 5.4 1.4 7.7 .. 3.1 4.4

1. Expenditure on private business colleges is not included.2. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a break

in series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.3. The only college in Nunavut started reporting tuition fees (part of private expenditure) for the trade-vocational portion in 2000/2001.Sources: Tables B.2.2 and B.2.4.


230

B2


Table B.2.8

Average1 undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada and provinces, 1991/1992 to 2005/2006(in 2001 constant dollars)

Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

2001 constant dollars

1991/1992 1,998 1,777 2,462 2,600 2,350 1,493 2,150 2,253 2,251 1,862 2,2941992/1993 2,153 1,927 2,603 2,833 2,582 1,634 2,260 2,572 2,511 2,182 2,3941993/1994 2,309 2,233 2,821 3,071 2,692 1,746 2,399 2,658 2,700 2,598 2,4591994/1995 2,498 2,369 2,960 3,347 2,662 1,909 2,601 2,736 2,878 2,851 2,6121995/1996 2,638 2,516 3,116 3,611 2,792 1,876 2,818 2,820 2,984 3,096 2,7171996/1997 2,876 2,872 3,181 3,897 3,015 1,848 3,279 2,935 2,978 3,280 2,7101997/1998 3,084 3,391 3,413 4,176 3,232 1,929 3,572 3,153 3,325 3,530 2,6381998/1999 3,253 3,376 3,585 4,341 3,418 1,905 3,894 3,339 3,490 3,765 2,6281999/2000 3,446 3,443 3,639 4,391 3,442 1,872 4,254 3,611 3,507 3,856 2,6312000/2001 3,464 3,373 3,513 4,640 3,594 1,828 4,284 3,235 3,698 3,909 2,6012001/2002 3,538 3,006 3,671 4,788 3,803 1,825 4,444 3,222 3,816 3,979 2,4922002/2003 3,553 2,603 3,681 4,919 3,932 1,779 4,396 3,052 4,094 3,882 3,0542003/2004 3,742 2,451 3,845 5,174 4,143 1,765 4,534 3,022 4,362 4,143 3,8572004/2005 3,818 2,386 3,950 5,444 4,290 1,746 4,466 3,013 4,634 4,473 4,3832005/2006 3,788 2,330 4,058 5,571 4,461 1,717 4,456 3,035 4,535 4,216 4,419

1. Both in- and out-of-province students are included in the weighted average calculations; foreign students are not included.Source: Survey of Tuition and Living Accommodation Costs for Full-time Students, Statistics Canada.

Table B.2.7

Percentage of households incurring education expenditure and average expenditure per household on education,Canada and provinces, 2004


percentagePercentage of households incurringexpenditure on education 43 41 41 37 36 41 45 41 41 46 45Supplies, all levels 28 33 31 26 28 26 29 29 29 28 28Textbooks, all levels 20 30 11 10 12 24 20 13 16 18 18Tuition, pre-elementary andelementary-secondary 9 7 F 4 7 13 4 8 15 21 6Tuition, postsecondary 18 15 14 12 13 17 20 14 16 18 19

dollarsAverage education expenditure perhousehold incurring such expenditure 2,484 1,745 1,944 2,432 2,219 1,548 3,053 1,765 2,059 2,441 2,989Supplies, all levels 222 191 173 227 215 222 202 219 205 276 245Textbooks, all levels 567 362 913 708 733 405 673 609 541 586 624Tuition, pre-elementary andelementary-secondary 1,392 175 F 2,677 304 954 3,237 1,354 274 838 2,381Tuition, postsecondary 3,593 2,980 3,983 4,693 4,436 1,655 4,589 2,681 3,227 3,468 4,171

Source: Survey of Household Spending, 2004, Statistics Canada.

231

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.9

Average1 undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada and provinces, 2006/2007 (in current dollars)

2006/2007

dollars

Canada 4,347

Newfoundland and Labrador 2,606Prince Edward Island 4,947Nova Scotia 6,571New Brunswick 5,328Quebec 1,916Ontario 5,160Manitoba 3,338Saskatchewan 5,063Alberta 4,828British Columbia 4,960

1. Both in- and out-of-province students are included in the weighted average calculations; foreign students are not included.Source: Survey of Tuition and Living Accommodation Costs for Full-time Students, Statistics Canada.

Table B.2.10

Average1 university tuition fees2 by faculty, Canada, 1991/1992 to 2005/2006 (in 2001 constant dollars)

1991/ 1992/ 1993/ 1994/ 1995/ 1996/ 1997/ 1998/ 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2001 constant dollarsFaculty

Dentistry 2,531 2,695 2,887 3,208 3,356 4,602 4,535 5,870 8,141 8,466 9,030 9,312 11,022 11,308 11,724Medicine 2,428 2,585 2,716 3,066 3,176 3,710 4,135 5,052 6,103 6,526 7,377 7,720 8,600 9,346 9,282Law 1,967 2,164 2,307 2,593 2,679 2,905 3,092 3,326 3,619 4,064 4,318 4,809 5,645 6,065 6,211Commerce 1,904 2,056 2,212 2,389 2,512 2,732 2,940 3,097 3,284 3,316 3,497 3,314 3,447 3,494 3,423Engineering 2,076 2,240 2,429 2,628 2,798 2,953 3,196 3,382 3,604 3,642 3,735 3,701 4,141 4,232 4,264Science 2,027 2,183 2,341 2,540 2,687 2,916 3,134 3,288 3,452 3,437 3,508 3,569 3,725 3,773 3,796Music 2,011 2,129 2,265 2,421 2,548 2,770 3,026 3,209 3,464 3,373 3,419 3,433 3,538 3,576 3,541Arts 2,007 2,159 2,312 2,494 2,641 2,914 3,112 3,265 3,428 3,428 3,436 3,463 3,588 3,652 3,582Agriculture 1,963 2,121 2,299 2,411 2,561 2,779 3,012 3,137 3,169 3,174 3,181 3,160 3,290 3,335 3,277Architecture 2,131 2,239 2,306 2,509 2,697 2,868 3,090 3,209 3,495 3,527 3,543 3,373 3,375 3,316 3,248Household sciences 2,006 2,157 2,299 2,603 2,676 2,870 3,043 3,098 3,295 3,302 3,322 3,337 3,453 3,518 3,521Education 1,869 2,017 2,159 2,294 2,393 2,530 2,693 2,773 2,886 2,871 2,879 2,890 2,964 2,998 2,948

Undergraduate 1,997 2,153 2,309 2,498 2,638 2,876 3,084 3,253 3,446 3,464 3,538 3,553 3,742 3,818 3,788

Graduate 2,130 2,222 2,430 2,454 2,681 2,822 3,176 3,418 3,729 4,090 4,448 4,660 4,861 5,022 5,518

1. Both in- and out-of-province students are included in the weighted average calculations; foreign students are not included.2. Based on the eight-month academic year.Source: Survey of Tuition and Living Accommodation Costs for Full-time Students, Statistics Canada.


232

B2


Table B.2.12

University and university-college revenues, by source, as a percentage of total revenue, Canada and provinces,1999/2000 and 2004/2005


as a percentage of total revenueGovernment

1999/2000 53.2 61.2 54.8 41.6 50.6 63.6 47.6 57.7 56.3 53.8 53.52004/2005 54.2 63.0 59.8 38.4 48.5 68.1 47.5 57.2 57.2 57.0 52.7

Student fees

1999/2000 18.5 19.7 22.2 24.4 21.7 11.6 22.8 17.8 15.6 17.1 16.72004/2005 20.7 15.1 21.6 32.1 26.7 11.1 25.3 18.0 16.7 17.7 23.1

Non-government grants andcontracts, donations and bequests

1999/2000 10.9 5.2 3.8 8.8 7.6 12.3 12.3 10.5 8.2 10.0 7.52004/2005 10.4 6.2 4.6 7.9 8.5 9.3 12.1 13.2 7.5 9.0 9.8

Sales

1999/2000 8.8 4.5 16.9 15.8 12.4 6.3 6.9 9.7 15.0 12.2 11.12004/2005 8.1 4.1 11.9 14.5 11.4 6.1 5.6 8.9 14.4 11.9 12.0

Investment

1999/2000 5.2 1.9 1.6 7.4 6.1 3.6 5.8 3.2 3.5 6.2 6.22004/2005 3.1 1.0 1.2 4.1 3.6 1.9 4.2 1.9 3.2 3.8 1.3

Miscellaneous

1999/2000 3.4 7.5 0.7 2.0 1.6 2.6 4.6 1.1 1.4 0.7 5.02004/2005 3.5 10.6 0.9 3.0 1.3 3.5 5.3 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.1

Source: Survey of Financial Information of Universities and Colleges, Statistics Canada.

Table B.2.11

Average1 university tuition fees2 by faculty, Canada, 2006/2007 (in current dollars)

2006/2007

dollarsFaculty

Dentistry 13,463Medicine 10,553Law 7,221Commerce 3,989Engineering 4,887Science 4,353Music 4,092Arts 4,104Agriculture 3,712Architecture 3,805Household sciences 4,037Education 3,334

Undergraduate 4,347

Graduate 6,479

1. Both in- and out-of-province students are included in the weighted average calculations; foreign students are not included.2. Based on the eight-month academic year.Source: Survey of Tuition and Living Accommodation Costs for Full-time Students, Statistics Canada.

233

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.13

University expenditure, by resource category, Canada and provinces, 1999/2000 to 2004/2005(in thousands of 2001 constant dollars)

Universities

Operating expenditure1

Compensation

Total Total Other Othercapital operating Academic salaries Total operating

expenditure expenditure1 salaries and wages2 Benefits3 compensation expenditure

thousands of 2001 constant dollars2004/2005

Canada 2,136,716 18,952,822 5,479,354 4,383,299 1,682,524 11,545,177 7,407,645Newfoundland and Labrador 18,436 308,888 86,377 92,850 29,488 208,715 100,173Prince Edward Island 17,228 71,756 18,000 22,303 7,558 47,861 23,895Nova Scotia 61,222 741,177 215,226 175,129 59,120 449,475 291,702New Brunswick 28,362 381,061 124,814 87,071 31,951 243,835 137,226Quebec 688,651 4,181,635 1,271,283 932,637 404,619 2,608,539 1,573,096Ontario 739,017 7,485,997 2,075,967 1,717,991 671,537 4,465,494 3,020,503Manitoba 54,234 647,601 205,004 143,206 52,840 401,050 246,551Saskatchewan 55,328 672,215 200,034 180,291 50,427 430,752 241,462Alberta 144,283 1,896,962 511,553 442,024 157,638 1,111,215 785,747British Columbia 329,956 2,565,530 771,096 589,799 217,346 1,578,241 987,289

2003/2004


2002/2003


2001/2002

Canada 1,483,597 15,554,919 4,557,537 3,758,745 1,211,957 9,528,239 6,026,680Newfoundland and Labrador 16,410 270,843 86,014 77,277 24,119 187,410 83,433Prince Edward Island 3,883 61,755 15,211 20,573 4,831 40,615 21,140Nova Scotia 60,921 648,889 193,295 155,948 44,261 393,504 255,385New Brunswick 8,972 338,096 110,035 79,992 27,568 217,595 120,501Quebec 438,802 3,443,325 1,087,846 803,076 297,813 2,188,735 1,254,590Ontario 625,231 5,923,880 1,643,906 1,435,658 417,780 3,497,344 2,426,536Manitoba 32,632 563,715 172,612 132,092 43,462 348,166 215,549Saskatchewan 45,817 641,341 180,934 151,801 43,273 376,008 265,333Alberta 101,273 1,634,687 443,382 384,040 130,513 957,935 676,752British Columbia 149,656 2,028,388 624,302 518,288 178,337 1,320,927 707,461


234

B2


Table B.2.13

University expenditure, by resource category, Canada and provinces, 1999/2000 to 2004/2005(in thousands of 2001 constant dollars) (concluded)

Universities


Compensation



thousands of 2001 constant dollars2000/2001

Canada 1,090,238 14,634,278 4,397,856 3,547,807 1,158,249 9,103,912 5,530,366Newfoundland and Labrador 17,957 247,668 73,736 72,198 20,139 166,072 81,595Prince Edward Island 978 59,696 15,060 19,109 3,481 37,650 22,046Nova Scotia 40,458 631,956 192,102 147,609 42,244 381,955 250,001New Brunswick 14,328 325,812 105,063 75,809 25,172 206,044 119,768Quebec 360,919 3,205,915 1,059,163 764,570 269,978 2,093,711 1,112,204Ontario 376,998 5,623,955 1,597,473 1,359,098 407,424 3,363,996 2,259,960Manitoba 16,107 539,296 168,316 122,983 41,268 332,566 206,730Saskatchewan 13,928 602,149 181,176 149,589 38,901 369,666 232,483Alberta 150,529 1,521,047 409,829 362,394 147,227 919,450 601,597British Columbia 98,037 1,876,784 595,937 474,449 162,416 1,232,802 643,982

1999/2000

Canada 870,067 13,883,536 4,239,903 3,389,671 1,076,471 8,706,045 5,177,492Newfoundland and Labrador 13,816 244,136 74,542 69,534 20,253 164,328 79,808Prince Edward Island 1,681 57,373 15,082 18,348 3,451 36,880 20,492Nova Scotia 27,180 629,685 191,558 148,204 40,893 380,654 249,031New Brunswick 13,713 317,643 99,227 75,517 26,365 201,109 116,534Quebec 374,563 3,067,079 1,022,996 719,325 257,370 1,999,691 1,067,388Ontario 224,532 5,314,340 1,523,882 1,308,138 379,410 3,211,430 2,102,910Manitoba 19,978 512,338 162,834 110,715 37,151 310,700 201,638Saskatchewan 22,430 560,369 180,870 141,174 40,933 362,977 197,393Alberta 91,183 1,405,869 403,554 333,282 119,979 856,815 549,054British Columbia 80,991 1,774,705 565,360 465,434 150,666 1,181,460 593,245

1. Operating expenditure includes the following funds: general operating; special purpose and trust; sponsored research; and ancillary enterprises.2. Includes payments to all full and part time non-instructional (support) staff including among others, technicians, teaching and research laboratory

technicians, clerical and secretarial, professional and managerial, janitorial, trades and maintenance. Includes payments to individuals who may hold anacademic rank, or equivalent thereto, but are engaged in activities other than instruction and research.

3. Benefits include the costs of institutions’ contributions (with respect to salaries) for pensions (including payments for actuarial deficiencies and pastservice liability), group life insurance, salary continuance insurance, dental plans, Workers’ Compensation, health taxes, tuition remission, EmploymentInsurance, and other costs of employee benefit programs.

Source: Survey of Financial Information of Universities and Colleges, Statistics Canada.

235

Chapter B tables B2


Table B.2.14

Percentage distribution of university expenditure, by resource category, Canada and provinces, 1999/2000 to 2004/2005

Universities


Compensation



percentage distribution2004/2005

Canada 10 90 29 23 9 61 39Newfoundland and Labrador 6 94 28 30 10 68 32Prince Edward Island 19 81 25 31 11 67 33Nova Scotia 8 92 29 24 8 61 39New Brunswick 7 93 33 23 8 64 36Quebec 14 86 30 22 10 62 38Ontario 9 91 28 23 9 60 40Manitoba 8 92 32 22 8 62 38Saskatchewan 8 92 30 27 8 64 36Alberta 7 93 27 23 8 59 41British Columbia 11 89 30 23 8 62 38

2003/2004


2002/2003


2001/2002



236

B2


Table B.2.14

Percentage distribution of university expenditure, by resource category, Canada and provinces,1999/2000 to 2004/2005 (concluded)

Universities


Compensation



percentage distribution2000/2001


1999/2000


1. Operating expenditure includes the following funds: general operating; special purpose and trust; sponsored research; and ancillary enterprises.2. Includes payments to all full- and part-time non-instructional (support) staff including, among others, technicians, teaching and research laboratory

technicians, clerical and secretarial, professional and managerial, janitorial, trades and maintenance. Includes payments to individuals who may hold anacademic rank, or equivalent thereto, but are engaged in activities other than instruction and research.

3. Benefits include the costs of institutions’ contributions (with respect to salaries) for pensions (including payments for actuarial deficiencies and pastservice liability), group life insurance, salary continuance insurance, dental plans, Workers’ Compensation, health taxes, tuition remission, EmploymentInsurance, and other costs of employee benefit programs.


237

B3Chapter B tables


Table B.3.1

Percentage of graduates who borrowed from government student loan programs and average debt at graduation,1995 and 2000 graduates,1 Canada and provinces

Percentage of Average debt atgraduates graduation of Percentage change

who borrowed those who borrowed2 in average debt atProvince of study and graduation of thoselevel of education 1995 2000 1995 2000 who borrowed

percentage 2000 dollars percentageCanada

College 46 47 9,700 11,700 21Bachelor’s 49 51 13,000 16,700 28Master’s 42 53 12,300 14,500 18Doctorate 32 51 11,800 14,900 26All university 48 51 12,900 16,200 26


College 50 63 12,100 14,500 20Bachelor’s 65 75 15,700 24,500 56Master’s 35 62 9,100 10,000 10Doctorate x x x x ..All university 61 72 15,200 22,500 48


College 42 54 6,600 11,000 67Bachelor’s 56 60 11,900 15,500 30Master’s .. 69 E .. 12,900 E ..Doctorate .. x .. x ..All university 55 60 11,900 16,100 35

Nova Scotia

College 42 50 9,600 9,700 1Bachelor’s 55 58 13,500 19,300 43Master’s 39 57 12,500 12,000 -4Doctorate 26 E 32 E F 13,700 E ..All university 52 58 13,300 18,200 37

New Brunswick

College 46 61 9,900 12,200 23Bachelor’s 58 65 14,600 19,300 32Master’s 39 56 11,100 14,200 28Doctorate 50 82 F 13,800 E ..All university 56 64 14,300 18,600 30

Quebec

College 57 53 7,900 6,700 -15Bachelor’s 51 49 10,400 10,300 -1Master’s 56 60 12,100 12,600 4Doctorate 57 65 12,800 15,400 20All university 51 52 10,700 11,000 3

Tables B3


238

B3


Table B.3.1

Percentage of graduates who borrowed from government student loan programs and average debt at graduation,1995 and 2000 graduates,1 Canada and provinces (concluded)

Percentage of Average debt atgraduates graduation of Percentage change

who borrowed those who borrowed2 in average debt atProvince of study and graduation of thoselevel of education 1995 2000 1995 2000 who borrowed

percentage 2000 dollars percentageOntario

College 46 46 10,600 14,400 36Bachelor’s 45 49 13,600 19,700 45Master’s 36 53 12,200 17,300 42Doctorate 25 48 10,600 14,600 38All university 44 50 13,400 19,100 43

Manitoba

College 26 31 7,700 8,900 16Bachelor’s 37 41 11,700 14,700 26Master’s 26 34 10,700 12,800 20Doctorate 13 E 37 E F 8,100 E ..All university 35 40 11,600 14,400 24

Saskatchewan

College 49 51 11,700 10,800 -8Bachelor’s 49 54 17,900 19,000 6Master’s 26 48 12,100 14,700 21Doctorate x 47 E x 25,800 E ..All university 46 53 17,500 18,600 6

Alberta

College 47 50 9,600 10,300 7Bachelor’s 59 54 15,200 16,700 10Master’s 34 39 12,700 11,900 -6Doctorate 21 35 11,800 E 12,700 E 8All university 54 51 15,000 16,100 7

British Columbia

College 28 44 11,200 9,900 -12Bachelor’s 44 51 16,700 16,900 1Master’s 32 47 15,500 12,500 -19Doctorate 20 36 13,500 E 14,800 10All university 42 50 16,600 16,100 -3

1. For graduates who incurred government student loans and who reported data two years after graduation.2. The calculation includes graduates who had paid off government student loans completely at graduation.Source: National Graduates Survey, Statistics Canada.

239

Chapter B tables B3


Table B.3.2

Incidence and repayment of government student loans among 2000 graduates1 who did not pursue any furtherpostsecondary education program2, Canada and provinces

Percentage of Graduates Graduates still Graduates stillgraduates who still owing owing 2 years owing 5 years

borrowed at graduation after graduation after graduation

Province of study and average average averagelevel of education percentage percentage debt ($) percentage debt ($) percentage debt ($)

Canada

College 48 43 12,700 33 10,300 22 8,900Bachelor’s 51 46 19,600 36 16,200 24 14,400Master’s 51 37 17,900 26 16,300 19 14,200Doctorate 50 39 17,900 27 15,500 18 14,500All university 51 44 19,200 33 16,200 23 14,400


College 61 56 14,900 46 13,100 36 11,800Bachelor’s 76 72 27,000 59 23,200 47 21,000Master’s 68 31 18,200 20 18,900 15 E 17,100Doctorate x .. .. .. .. .. ..All university 73 61 26,000 49 22,700 38 20,700


College 52 47 11,700 35 10,800 25 10,400Bachelor’s 58 56 22,400 44 17,700 38 15,300Master’s F x x x x x xDoctorate x x x x x x xAll university 59 55 23,400 44 18,100 37 15,600

Nova Scotia

College 50 46 10,600 38 9,500 28 9,100Bachelor’s 58 55 25,400 45 21,700 36 17,600Master’s 56 31 20,500 25 16,800 18 12,300Doctorate 33 E F 18,100 F 6,600 E x xAll university 57 49 24,700 40 20,900 32 16,900

New Brunswick

College 64 61 12,200 45 10,900 33 9,300Bachelor’s 64 59 22,900 52 19,900 43 18,700Master’s 54 40 20,300 30 19,300 27 16,200Doctorate 83 x x x x x xAll university 63 56 22,500 48 19,800 40 18,300

Quebec


Ontario

College 46 41 15,400 32 11,700 21 10,300Bachelor’s 50 47 22,100 35 18,300 21 17,900Master’s 50 39 19,200 25 18,600 17 E 18,000Doctorate 48 35 20,100 20 20,200 14 19,000All university 50 44 21,500 32 18,400 20 17,900

Manitoba

College 28 25 9,900 19 9,000 13 6,700Bachelor’s 42 39 18,200 29 16,100 20 14,200Master’s 35 24 18,400 17 17,200 14 12,300Doctorate 39 30 E 10,800 E F F x xAll university 41 36 18,000 27 16,200 19 14,000


240

B3


Table B.3.2

Incidence and repayment of government student loans among 2000 graduates1 who did not pursue any furtherpostsecondary education program2, Canada and provinces (concluded)

Percentage of Graduates Graduates still Graduates stillgraduates who still owing owing 2 years owing 5 years

borrowed at graduation after graduation after graduation

Province of study and average average averagelevel of education percentage percentage debt ($) percentage debt ($) percentage debt ($)

Saskatchewan

College 54 51 12,000 43 9,500 26 7,100Bachelor’s 54 49 21,800 43 18,400 30 15,100Master’s 46 31 22,400 21 18,500 17 E 17,500Doctorate 40 E 34 E 25,800 26 E 26,500 E 24 E 28,700 E

All university 53 46 21,900 39 18,500 28 15,500

Alberta

College 49 45 11,200 34 8,900 23 7,200Bachelor’s 55 52 18,900 38 14,700 27 13,500Master’s 39 23 20,300 17 16,200 10 13,500Doctorate 33 21 14,100 13 E 12,300 8 E 10,200All university 51 45 18,900 33 14,800 23 13,400

British Columbia


1. For graduates who incurred government student loans and who reported data at both collection points (two and five years after graduation).2. A program for a diploma, certificate or degree above the high school level which would take someone three months or more to complete if taken

full-time.Note: Not comparable with Table B.3.1, as data in this table exclude graduates who pursued any further postsecondary education program.Sources: National Graduates Survey, Follow-up of Graduates Survey, Statistics Canada.

Tables C


Chapter C tablesTable C.1.1Physical limitations, participation in out-of-schoolactivities and exposure to books, 4- and 5-year-olds,by sex, Canada, 2004/2005 243

Table C.1.2Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised) scores for4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005 244

Table C.2.1Full-time-equivalent enrolments in public elementaryand secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2004/2005 245

Table C.2.2Full-time-equivalent educators in public elementaryand secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2004/2005 246

Table C.2.3Student-educator ratio in public elementary andsecondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2004/2005 246

Table C.2.4Full-time educators (headcount) in public elementary-secondary schools, number and percentage distributionby age and sex, Canada and jurisdictions, 2004/2005 247

Table C.2.5Age distribution of full-time educators in publicelementary-secondary schools and of full-timeemployed labour force, Canada and provinces,2004/2005 248

Table C.2.6Part-time educators (headcount) as a percentage ofeducators in public elementary-secondary schools,by sex, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998and 2004/2005 250

Table C.2.7Males (headcount) as a percentage of educators inpublic elementary-secondary schools, Canadaand jurisdictions, 1997/1998 and 2004/2005 250

Table C.3.1High school graduation rates (from first educationalprogram), by sex and age relative to typical age ofgraduation, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998and 2002/2003 251

Table C.4.1Estimated average scores, standard errors and percentagedistribution of 15-year-old students by mathematicsproficiency on the PISA mathematics combined scale,Canada, provinces and selected countries, 2003 253

Table C.4.2Estimated average scores, standard errors and percentagedistribution of 15-year-old students by reading proficiencyon the PISA combined reading literacy scale, Canada,provinces and selected countries, 2000 255

Table C.4.3Comparison of estimated average performance inmathematics for PISA 2003 and PISA 2000assessments, Canada and provinces 257

Table C.4.4Comparison of estimated average performance inreading for PISA 2003 and PISA 2000 assessments,Canada and provinces 258

Table C.4.5Comparison of estimated average performance inscience, PISA 2003 and PISA 2000 assessments,Canada and provinces 258

Table C.4.6Percentage of 13-year-old students at performancelevel 2 or above in SAIP assessments, Canadaand jurisdictions 259

Table C.4.7Percentage of 16-year-old students at performancelevel 3 or above in SAIP assessments, Canadaand jurisdictions 261



Chapter C tablesTable C.5.1Number of students per computer, proportion of homecomputers connected to the Internet, 15-year-oldstudents, Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 263

Table C.5.2Percentage of 15-year-old students who reportedavailability of computers at home and at school,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 264

Table C.5.3Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported usingcomputers at home and at school, by frequency of use,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003 265

Table C.5.4Percentage of 15-year-old students who reportedusing computers to help them learn school material,by frequency of use, Canada, other countriesand provinces, 2003 266

Table C.5.5Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported useof computers at home and at school, by frequency ofuse and sex, Canada, other countries and provinces,2003 267

243

C1Chapter C tables


Table C.1.1

Physical limitations, participation in out-of-school activities and exposure to books, 4- and 5-year-olds,by sex, Canada, 2004/2005

Boys Girls

Standard Standardpercentage error percentage error

Percentage of children whose general health was:Excellent 60.8 (1.6) 63.3 (1.7)Very good 27.7 (1.5) 28.3 (1.7)Good x x x xFair/Poor F F F F

Percentage of children with/who had:Difficulty seeing 2.6 E (0.5) 4.4 E (0.8)Difficulty hearing F F F FDifficulty being understood when speaking 7.8 (1.0) 5.3 (0.8)Difficulty walking F F F FPain or discomfort 1.6 E (0.4) 1.7 E (0.4)Ever received a diagnosis of asthma from a health care professional1 18.4 (1.4) 8.8 (0.9)Long-term allergies 15.5 (1.3) 10.3 (1.1)Long-term bronchitis 2.3 E (0.5) 1.5 E (0.3)

Percentage of children who, in the past 12 months, on a weekly basis:Participated in sports that are coached 45.7 (1.7) 38.2 (1.7)Took lessons/instruction in dance, gymnastics, martial arts, etc. 20.6 (1.4) 43.4 (1.7)Participated in music, art or other non-sport activities 11.2 (1.1) 17.2 (1.4)Participated in clubs, groups or community programs with leadership 13.7 (1.1) 15.4 (1.2)

Percentage of children with adult who:Reads to them daily 59.5 (1.5) 60.9 (1.6)

Percentage of 4-year-olds who look at books, magazines or comics daily on their own 61 (2.4) 76.8 (2.2)

Percentage of 5-year-olds who look at books or try to read on their own daily 67.2 (2.3) 74.8 (2.1)

1. Note that the data now show the percentage of children who have ever been diagnosed with asthma, not just those who had an asthma attack in the12 months before the survey.

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 6, 2004/2005, Statistics Canada.

Tables C1


244

C1


Table C.1.2

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised) scores for 4- and 5-year-olds, by sex, Canada, 2004/2005


Boys Girls Boys Girls

Standard Standard Standard Standardpercentage error percentage error percentage error percentage error

Delayed receptive language skills 12.3 (1.7) 16.9 (2.4) 14.1 (1.7) 11.3 E (2.0)Normal receptive language skills 74.0 (2.2) 68.3 (2.7) 66.8 (2.3) 70.9 (2.5)Advanced receptive language skills 13.7 (1.7) 14.8 (1.8) 19.1 (1.9) 17.9 (1.9)

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 6, 2004/2005, Statistics Canada.

245

Chapter C tables C2


Table C.2.1

Full-time-equivalent enrolments in public elementary and secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2004/2005

Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que.1 Ont.2 Man.1 Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T.3 Nvt.3

number

1997/1998 5,033,887 r 98,527 24,397 161,780 131,586 1,118,504 1,976,177 185,347 r 189,095 514,256 611,280 6,097 16,843 r …

1998/1999 5,050,945 r 94,628 24,146 159,449 129,131 1,116,248 1,994,989 185,666 r 187,975 525,148 r 610,262 r 5,872 17,434 r …

1999/2000 5,051,658 r 91,203 24,089 158,205 127,003 1,101,644 2,011,430 190,185 r 186,355 r 528,099 609,074 5,766 9,410 r 9,196

2000/2001 5,041,302 r 87,550 23,153 155,873 124,942 1,094,472 2,026,039 183,141 r 184,316 r 531,165 r 606,588 r 5,577 9,317 r 9,171

2001/2002 5,041,746 r 84,284 22,843 153,450 122,792 1,090,176 2,046,333 182,448 r 180,485 529,758 r 605,056 r 5,397 9,533 r 9,194

2002/2003 5,020,393 r 81,767 22,615 150,599 120,600 1,084,434 r 2,049,535 180,723 r 176,700 533,127 596,441 5,412 9,420 r 9,021

2003/2004 4,958,385 r 79,001 22,239 148,514 118,869 1,076,622 r 2,015,627 180,132 r 173,231 530,901 r 589,467 r 5,327 9,414 r 9,041

2004/2005 4,925,861 76,923 22,393 145,396 117,145 1,066,902 2,012,093 178,256 170,514 532,063 580,598 5,272 9,304 9,005

Percentage change1997/1998 to2004/2005 -2.1 -21.9 -8.2 -10.1 -11.0 -4.6 1.8 -3.8 -9.8 3.5 -5.0 -13.5 -1.1 -2.1

1. Until 2000/2001, includes enrolments in adult programs and professional training under the authority of the school boards or districts. Certainjurisdictions include all students whether or not they are funded, while others include only funded students.

2. Excludes publicly funded hospital and provincial schools, care, treatment and correctional facilities.3. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.

in 1999/2000. As a result, the overall percentage change is calculated for the period 1999/2000 to 2004/2005 for the N.W.T. and Nvt.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.Source: Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project, Statistics Canada.

Tables C2


246

C2


Table C.2.3

Student-educator ratio in public elementary and secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 to 2004/2005

Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T.1 Nvt.1

ratio

1997/1998 16.6 14.6 17.0 17.2 17.1 15.2 16.9 15.4 r 17.4 18.8 17.5 13.3 18.4 r …

1998/1999 16.5 r 14.6 16.7 16.6 17.1 15.0 16.9 r 15.4 r 16.8 r 18.7 17.2 13.0 19.0 r …

1999/2000 16.5 r 14.2 16.7 16.5 16.8 14.8 17.0 r 15.7 r 16.5 r 18.8 17.1 12.7 18.1 19.2

2000/2001 16.3 r 13.8 15.9 16.5 16.7 14.6 r 16.8 r 15.0 r 16.8 r 18.4 16.8 12.0 16.9 r 19.2

2001/2002 16.3 r 13.4 15.6 16.5 16.9 14.6 17.1 r 15.0 r 16.1 r 17.9 16.8 11.9 16.5 r 19.2

2002/2003 16.3 r 13.4 15.3 16.2 16.6 14.3 17.0 r 14.9 r 15.8 r 18.1 17.6 12.1 16.3 18.8

2003/2004 16.1 r 13.4 15.0 16.0 16.2 14.2 r 16.9 r 14.8 r 14.8 r 17.9 17.7 12.0 15.5 r 19.1

2004/2005 15.9 13.6 15.1 15.7 15.9 14.2 16.6 14.5 14.5 16.9 17.5 11.5 15.4 16.2

1. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.in 1999/2000.

Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.Source: Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project, Statistics Canada.

Table C.2.2

Full-time-equivalent educators1 in public elementary and secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 to 2004/2005

Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont.2 Man. Sask.3,4 Alta.4 B.C. Y.T. N.W.T.5 Nvt.5

number

1997/1998 302,819 6,745 1,439 9,396 7,696 73,750 117,047 12,028 10,963 r 27,417 34,966 457 917 …

1998/1999 306,006 r 6,492 1,444 9,621 7,568 74,437 118,384 r 12,034 11,157 r 28,041 35,461 452 916 …

1999/2000 306,379 r 6,414 1,444 9,611 7,571 74,415 118,338 r 12,147 11,263 r 28,037 35,687 453 519 479

2000/2001 309,362 r 6,323 1,457 9,444 7,468 74,708 120,285 r 12,224 10,971 r 28,877 r 36,113 463 553 477

2001/2002 309,589 r 6,304 1,467 9,304 7,263 74,925 119,829 r 12,147 11,244 r 29,669 35,930 452 577 479

2002/2003 308,782 r 6,102 1,479 9,276 7,285 76,025 120,402 r 12,129 11,162 r 29,517 33,901 446 578 481

2003/2004 307,302 r 5,899 1,485 9,306 7,330 76,077 r 119,405 r 12,169 11,153 r 29,607 r 33,345 444 609 473

2004/2005 309,981 5,660 1,486 9,268 7,371 75,314 121,339 12,276 11,017 31,481 33,146 460 606 557

Percentage change1997/1998 to2004/2005 2.4 -16.1 3.3 -1.4 -4.2 2.1 3.7 2.1 0.5 14.8 -5.2 0.6 16.7 16.2

1. Full-time equivalent (FTE) educator is defined as the number of full-time educators on September 30th (or as close as possible thereafter) of the schoolyear, plus the sum of part-time educators according to their percentage of a full-time employment allocation (determined by the province or territory).

2. Excludes publicly funded hospital and provincial schools, care, treatment and correctional facilities.3. Includes educators in provincially funded schools (including “associated independent” and “historic” high schools) and excluding “independent” “First

Nations” schools and postsecondary sites.4. All educators in Lloydminster are included in Sask.’s counts and none of them are captured in the counts for Alta.5. Nvt. was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nvt. were included with data for the N.W.T. This creates a break in series for the N.W.T.

in 1999/2000. As a result, the overall percentage change is calculated for the period 1999/2000 to 2004/2005 for the N.W.T. and Nvt.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.Source: Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project, Statistics Canada.

247

Chapter C tables C2


Table C.2.4

Full-time educators (headcount) in public elementary-secondary schools, number and percentage distribution by age and sex,Canada and jurisdictions, 2004/2005

Age group Can.1 N.L. P.E.I.2 N.S.2 N.B. Que. Ont. Man.2 Sask.3,4 Alta.4 B.C. Y.T.2 N.W.T.5 Nvt.5

numberNumber of educatorsBoth sexesAll ages6 . 5,595 . . 7,136 62,935 113,935 . 10,088 28,187 27,870 . . .Less than 30 . 502 . . 842 6,018 17,221 . 1,514 4,693 1,717 . . .30 to 39 . 1,698 . . 2,379 19,973 32,458 . 2,741 7,434 6,270 . . .40 to 49 . 2,223 . . 2,046 17,180 31,382 . 3,311 8,105 8,172 . . .50 to 59 . 1,156 . . 1,820 18,645 29,255 . 2,412 7,412 10,967 . . .60 and over . 16 . . 49 1,119 1,966 . 110 543 744 . . .

Male

All ages6 . 2,012 . . 1,985 17,674 35,717 . 3,467 9,221 10,722 . . .Less than 30 . 106 . . 160 928 3,735 . 385 1,022 439 . . .30 to 39 . 535 . . 609 4,642 10,935 . 1,093 2,715 2,639 . . .40 to 49 . 847 . . 591 5,008 10,458 . 1,066 2,614 3,187 . . .50 to 59 . 521 . . 615 6,701 9,350 . 889 2,656 4,197 . . .60 and over . 3 . . 10 395 663 . 34 214 270 . . .

Female

All ages6 . 3,583 . . 5,151 45,261 78,218 . 6,621 18,949 17,148 . . .Less than 30 . 396 . . 682 5,090 13,486 . 1,129 3,663 1,278 . . .30 to 39 . 1,163 . . 1,770 15,331 21,523 . 1,648 4,714 3,641 . . .40 to 49 . 1,376 . . 1,455 12,172 20,924 . 2,245 5,489 4,985 . . .50 to 59 . 635 . . 1,205 11,944 19,905 . 1,523 4,754 6,770 . . .60 and over . 13 . . 39 724 1,303 . 76 329 474 . . .

percentageDistribution of educators7

Both sexesLess than 30 . 9.0 . . 11.8 9.6 15.3 . 15.0 16.6 6.2 . . .30 to 39 . 30.3 . . 33.3 31.7 28.9 . 27.2 26.4 22.5 . . .40 to 49 . 39.7 . . 28.7 27.3 27.9 . 32.8 28.8 29.3 . . .50 to 59 . 20.7 . . 25.5 29.6 26.1 . 23.9 26.3 39.4 . . .60 and over . 0.3 . . 0.7 1.8 1.8 . 1.1 1.9 2.7 . . .

Male

Less than 30 . 5.3 . . 8.1 5.3 10.6 . 11.1 11.1 4.1 . . .30 to 39 . 26.6 . . 30.7 26.3 31.1 . 31.5 29.4 24.5 . . .40 to 49 . 42.1 . . 29.8 28.3 29.8 . 30.7 28.3 29.7 . . .50 to 59 . 25.9 . . 31.0 37.9 26.6 . 25.6 28.8 39.1 . . .60 and over . 0.1 . . 0.5 2.2 1.9 . 1.0 2.3 2.5 . . .

Female

Less than 30 . 11.1 . . 13.2 11.2 17.5 . 17.1 19.3 7.5 . . .30 to 39 . 32.5 . . 34.4 33.9 27.9 . 24.9 24.9 21.2 . . .40 to 49 . 38.4 . . 28.2 26.9 27.1 . 33.9 29.0 29.1 . . .50 to 59 . 17.7 . . 23.4 26.4 25.8 . 23.0 25.1 39.5 . . .60 and over . 0.4 . . 0.8 1.6 1.7 . 1.1 1.7 2.8 . . .

1. Data for Can. not available due to lack of data from P.E.I., N.S., Man., Y.T., N.W.T. and Nvt. described below.2. P.E.I., N.S., Man. and Y.T. report combined full-time and part-time educator data only.3. Includes educators in provincially funded schools (including “associated independent” and “historic” high schools) and excluding “independent” “First

Nations” schools and postsecondary sites.4. All educators in Lloydminster are included in Sask.’s counts and none of them are captured in the counts for Alta.5. N.W.T. and Nvt. do not report headcount data on full-time, part-time educators or combined, only full-time equivalent educator data.6. Includes a small number of cases for which age is not reported.7. Percentage distribution is based on educators for whom age is reported.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.Source: Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project, Statistics Canada.


248

C2


Table C.2.5

Age distribution1 of full-time educators in public elementary-secondary schools andof full-time employed labour force, Canada and provinces, 2004/2005

Full-time Full-time employedAge group educators2 labour force3

percentage percentageCanada4

Less than 30 . 2230 to 39 . 2540 to 49 . 2950 to 59 . 2060 and over . 5

Total . 100


Less than 30 9 2030 to 39 30 2540 to 49 40 2950 to 59 21 2260 and over 0 4

Total 100 100



Total . 100

Nova Scotia


Total . 100

New Brunswick


Total 100 100

Quebec


Total 100 100

Ontario


Total 100 100

249

Chapter C tables C2


Table C.2.5

Age distribution1 of full-time educators in public elementary-secondary schools andof full-time employed labour force, Canada and provinces, 2004/2005 (concluded)

Full-time Full-time employedAge group educators2 labour force3

percentage percentageManitoba


Total . 100

Saskatchewan


Total 100 100

Alberta


Total 100 100

British Columbia


Total 100 100

1. Percentage distributions may not add up to 100% due to rounding.2. According to the age distributions on September 30th (or as close as possible thereafter) in the school year of

full-time educators in public elementary-secondary schools based on data from the Elementary-SecondaryEducation Statistics Project. Unknown ages excluded. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Yukonreport combined full-time and part-time educator data only. Northwest Territories and Nunavut do not reportheadcount data on full-time, part-time educators or combined, only full-time equivalent educator data.

3. Based on a monthly average from September to August, Labour Force Survey.4. Age distribution data on full-time educators for Canada not available due to lack of data from Prince Edward

Island, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut described in Note 2.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the

visually and hearing impaired.


250

C2


Table C.2.6

Part-time educators (headcount) as a percentage of educators in public elementary-secondary schools, by sex,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 and 2004/2005

Can.1 N.L. P.E.I2 N.S.2 N.B. Que. Ont. Man.2 Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T.2 N.W.T.3 Nvt.3

Part-time educators as a percentage of educators1997/1998

Both sexes . 5 . . 5 29 12 . 13 14 21 . . …Male . 1 . . 2 28 7 . 3 4 8 . . …Female . 7 . . 6 29 15 . 19 19 29 . . ...

2004/2005

Both sexes . 4 . . 5 32 10 . 14 17 23 . . .Male . 2 . . 2 34 5 . 4 11 9 . . .Female . 5 . . 6 32 13 . 18 20 30 . . .

Change1997/1998to 2004/2005

Both sexes . -1 . . 0 3 -2 . 1 3 2 . . …Male . 1 . . 0 6 -2 . 1 7 1 . . …Female . -2 . . 0 3 -2 . -1 1 1 . . …

1. Data for Can. not available due to lack of data from P.E.I., N.S., Man., Y.T., N.W.T. and Nvt. described below.2. P.E.I., N.S., Man. and Y.T. report combined full-time and part-time educator data only.3. N.W.T. and Nvt. do not report headcount data on full-time, part-time educators or combined, only full-time equivalent educator data.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.Source: Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project, Statistics Canada.

Table C.2.7

Males (headcount) as a percentage of educators in public elementary-secondary schools, Canada and jurisdictions,1997/1998 and 2004/2005

Can.1 N.L. P.E.I2 N.S.2 N.B. Que. Ont. Man.2 Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T.2 N.W.T.3 Nvt.3

Males as a percentage of educators

1997/1998

Full-time educators . 44 . . 35 34 32 . 40 39 42 . . …Part-time educators . 13 . . 16 33 17 . 9 9 13 . . …

2004/2005

Full-time educators . 36 . . 28 28 31 . 35 33 38 . . .Part-time educators . 14 . . 11 30 13 . 10 19 13 . . .

Change1997/1998to 2004/2005

Full-time educators . -8 . . -7 -6 -1 . -5 -6 -4 . . …Part-time educators . 1 . . -5 -3 -4 . 1 10 0 . . …

1. Data for Can. not available due to lack of data from P.E.I., N.S., Man., Y.T., N.W.T. and Nvt. described below.2. P.E.I., N.S., Man. and Y.T. report combined full-time and part-time educator data only.3. N.W.T. and Nvt. do not report headcount data on full-time, part-time educators or combined, only full-time equivalent educator data.Note: These data are for public schools only and do not include private schools, federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired.Source: Elementary-Secondary Education Statistics Project, Statistics Canada.

251

Chapter C tables C3


Tables C3

Table C.3.1

High school1 graduation rates (from first educational program), by sex and age relative to typical age of graduation,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 and 2002/2003

1997/1998 2002/2003 Difference

Both Both Bothsexes Males Females sexes Males Females sexes Males Females

rate rate rateOverall graduation rate

Canada2 72 67 77 74 70 78 2 3 1Newfoundland and Labrador3 81 75 88 77 72 81 -4 -3 -7Prince Edward Island 87 83 90 83 79 86 -4 -4 -4Nova Scotia 82 76 87 81 78 84 -1 2 -3New Brunswick 83 78 89 82 77 86 -1 -1 -3Quebec4 82 75 90 79 71 86 -3 -4 -4Ontario 76 72 82 .. .. .. .. .. ..Manitoba5 76 71 81 71 67 76 -5 -4 -5Saskatchewan 73 70 77 77 73 81 4 3 4Alberta 63 59 68 67 63 70 4 4 2British Columbia 71 67 76 77 73 82 6 6 6Yukon 58 53 64 57 52 60 -1 -1 -4Northwest Territories6 34 30 38 43 38 50 9 8 12Nunavut6 … … … 26 25 26 .. .. ..

Typical-age graduation rate

Canada2 62 57 67 67 62 72 5 5 5Newfoundland and Labrador3 75 67 83 71 65 77 -4 -2 -6Prince Edward Island 71 65 79 76 70 81 5 5 2Nova Scotia 73 66 80 76 72 79 3 6 -1New Brunswick 69 62 78 71 64 79 2 2 1Quebec4 57 49 65 54 46 63 -3 -3 -2Ontario 51 46 57 .. .. .. .. .. ..Manitoba5 60 56 65 63 58 69 3 2 4Saskatchewan 65 61 70 70 65 75 5 4 5Alberta 55 51 59 60 56 63 5 5 4British Columbia 62 57 67 71 66 76 9 9 9Yukon 37 31 43 43 38 48 6 7 5Northwest Territories6 18 16 20 30 28 33 12 12 13Nunavut6 … … … 13 12 14 .. .. ..


252

C3


After-typical-agegraduation rate

Canada2 10 10 9 7 8 6 -3 -2 -3Newfoundland and Labrador3 6 8 5 6 7 4 0 -1 -1Prince Edward Island 15 19 12 7 9 5 -8 -10 -7Nova Scotia 9 10 7 5 6 5 -4 -4 -2New Brunswick 14 16 11 10 13 7 -4 -3 -4Quebec4 25 26 25 24 25 23 -1 -1 -2Ontario 26 26 25 .. .. .. .. .. ..Manitoba5 16 16 15 8 9 7 -8 -7 -8Saskatchewan 8 9 7 7 8 6 -1 -1 -1Alberta 8 8 8 7 7 7 -1 -1 -1British Columbia 10 10 9 6 7 6 -4 -3 -3Yukon 21 22 20 13 14 13 -8 -8 -7Northwest Territories6 16 14 18 13 10 17 -3 -4 -1Nunavut6 … … … 13 13 13 .. .. ..

1. High schools include public, private and federal schools and schools for the visually and hearing impaired. Equivalencies and “general educationdiplomas” are excluded.

2. The rate for Canada excludes Quebec and Ontario.3. From 1995/1996 to 1999/2000, high school graduation was based on school results only; there were no provincial examinations.4. Secondary graduations for Quebec include graduates from adult and trade/vocational programs.5. Until 2000/2001, includes enrolments in adult programs and professional training under the authority of the school boards or districts.6. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a break

in series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.

Source: Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2005. Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian EducationIndicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.

Table C.3.1

High school1 graduation rates (from first educational program), by sex and age relative to typical age of graduation,Canada and jurisdictions, 1997/1998 and 2002/2003 (concluded)

1997/1998 2002/2003 Difference

Both Both Bothsexes Males Females sexes Males Females sexes Males Females

rate rate rate

253

Chapter C tables C4


Tables C4

Table C.4.1

Estimated average scores, standard errors and percentage distribution of 15-year-old students by mathematics proficiency onthe PISA mathematics combined scale, Canada, provinces and selected countries, 2003

Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2

Estimated Standard Standard Standard StandardCountry and province1 average scores error percentage error percentage error percentage error

Hong Kong-China 550 (4.5) 3.9 (0.7) 6.5 (0.6) 13.9 (1.0)Alberta 549 (4.3) 1.7 (0.3) 5.7 (0.8) 15.0 (2.1)Finland 544 (1.9) 1.5 (0.2) 5.3 (0.4) 16.0 (0.6)Korea 542 (3.2) 2.5 (0.3) 7.1 (0.7) 16.6 (0.8)British Columbia 538 (2.4) 1.7 (0.3) 6.9 (0.6) 17.6 (1.0)Netherlands 538 (3.1) 2.6 (0.7) 8.4 (0.9) 18.0 (1.1)Quebec 537 (4.7) 3.3 (0.6) 7.8 (0.9) 16.2 (1.3)Liechtenstein 536 (4.1) 4.8 (1.3) 7.5 (1.7) 17.3 (2.8)Japan 534 (4.0) 4.7 (0.7) 8.6 (0.7) 16.3 (0.8)

Canada 532 (1.8) 2.4 (0.3) 7.7 (0.4) 18.3 (0.6)

Ontario 530 (3.6) 2.0 (0.4) 7.7 (0.8) 19.1 (1.1)Belgium 529 (2.3) 7.2 (0.6) 9.3 (0.5) 15.9 (0.6)Manitoba 528 (3.1) 2.8 (0.6) 8.2 (0.8) 19.2 (1.2)Macao-China 527 (2.9) 2.3 (0.6) 8.8 (1.3) 19.6 (1.4)Switzerland 527 (3.4) 4.9 (0.4) 9.6 (0.6) 17.5 (0.8)Australia 524 (2.1) 4.3 (0.4) 10.0 (0.5) 18.6 (0.6)New Zealand 523 (2.3) 4.9 (0.4) 10.1 (0.6) 19.2 (0.7)Newfoundland and Labrador 517 (2.5) 2.9 (0.6) 9.6 (0.9) 22.2 (1.6)Saskatchewan 516 (3.9) 3.9 (1.0) 9.9 (0.9) 20.9 (1.5)Czech Republic 516 (3.5) 5.0 (0.7) 11.6 (0.9) 20.1 (1.0)Nova Scotia 515 (2.2) 3.2 (0.5) 10.4 (0.7) 21.5 (1.1)Iceland 515 (1.4) 4.5 (0.4) 10.5 (0.6) 20.2 (1.0)Denmark 514 (2.7) 4.7 (0.5) 10.7 (0.6) 20.6 (0.9)New Brunswick 512 (1.8) 3.7 (0.5) 10.6 (0.6) 22.8 (0.9)France 511 (2.5) 5.6 (0.7) 11.0 (0.8) 20.2 (0.8)Sweden 509 (2.6) 5.6 (0.5) 11.7 (0.6) 21.7 (0.8)Austria 506 (3.3) 5.6 (0.7) 13.2 (0.8) 21.6 (0.9)Ireland 503 (2.4) 4.7 (0.6) 12.1 (0.8) 23.6 (0.8)Germany 503 (3.3) 9.2 (0.8) 12.4 (0.8) 19.0 (1.0)Prince Edward Island 500 (2.0) 5.2 (0.5) 12.5 (1.0) 23.7 (1.6)

OECD average 500 (0.6) 8.2 (0.2) 13.2 (0.2) 21.1 (0.1)

Slovak Republic 498 (3.3) 6.7 (0.8) 13.2 (0.9) 23.5 (0.9)Norway 495 (2.4) 6.9 (0.5) 13.9 (0.8) 23.7 (1.2)Luxembourg 493 (1.0) 7.4 (0.4) 14.3 (0.6) 22.9 (0.9)Poland 490 (2.5) 6.8 (0.6) 15.2 (0.8) 24.8 (0.7)Hungary 490 (2.8) 7.8 (0.8) 15.2 (0.8) 23.8 (1.0)Spain 485 (2.4) 8.1 (0.7) 14.9 (0.9) 24.7 (0.8)Latvia 483 (3.7) 7.6 (0.9) 16.1 (1.1) 25.5 (1.2)United States 483 (2.9) 10.2 (0.8) 15.5 (0.8) 23.9 (0.8)Russian Federation 468 (4.2) 11.4 (1.0) 18.8 (1.1) 26.4 (1.1)Portugal 466 (3.4) 11.3 (1.1) 18.8 (1.0) 27.1 (1.0)Italy 466 (3.1) 13.2 (1.2) 18.7 (0.9) 24.7 (1.0)Greece 445 (3.9) 17.8 (1.2) 21.2 (1.2) 26.3 (1.0)Serbia and Montenegro (Ser.) 437 (3.8) 17.6 (1.3) 24.5 (1.1) 28.6 (1.2)Turkey 423 (6.7) 27.7 (2.0) 24.6 (1.3) 22.1 (1.1)Uruguay 422 (3.3) 26.3 (1.3) 21.8 (0.8) 24.2 (0.9)Thailand 417 (3.0) 23.8 (1.3) 30.2 (1.2) 25.4 (1.1)Mexico 385 (3.6) 38.1 (1.7) 27.9 (1.0) 20.8 (0.9)Indonesia 360 (3.9) 50.5 (2.1) 27.6 (1.1) 14.8 (1.1)Tunisia 359 (2.5) 51.1 (1.4) 26.9 (1.0) 14.7 (0.8)Brazil 356 (4.8) 53.3 (1.9) 21.9 (1.1) 14.1 (0.9)


254

C4


Table C.4.1

Estimated average scores, standard errors and percentage distribution of 15-year-old students by mathematics proficiency onthe PISA mathematics combined scale, Canada, provinces and selected countries, 2003 (concluded)

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Standard Standard Standard StandardCountry and province1 percentage error percentage error percentage error percentage error

Hong Kong-China 20.0 (1.2) 25.0 (1.2) 20.2 (1.0) 10.5 (0.9)Alberta 24.6 (1.4) 26.0 (1.7) 18.5 (1.1) 8.5 (1.4)Finland 27.7 (0.7) 26.1 (0.9) 16.7 (0.6) 6.7 (0.5)Korea 24.1 (1.0) 25.0 (1.1) 16.7 (0.8) 8.1 (0.9)British Columbia 25.8 (1.1) 26.3 (1.0) 15.8 (0.8) 5.9 (0.6)Netherlands 23.0 (1.1) 22.6 (1.3) 18.2 (1.1) 7.3 (0.6)Quebec 23.5 (1.5) 25.6 (1.5) 16.6 (1.2) 7.0 (0.8)Liechtenstein 21.6 (2.5) 23.2 (3.1) 18.3 (3.2) 7.3 (1.7)Japan 22.4 (1.0) 23.6 (1.2) 16.1 (1.0) 8.2 (1.1)

Canada 26.2 (0.7) 25.1 (0.6) 14.8 (0.5) 5.5 (0.4)

Ontario 27.7 (1.3) 25.1 (1.3) 13.8 (1.2) 4.6 (0.8)Belgium 20.1 (0.7) 21.0 (0.6) 17.5 (0.7) 9.0 (0.5)Manitoba 26.3 (1.4) 24.5 (1.5) 14.2 (1.2) 4.8 (0.6)Macao-China 26.8 (1.8) 23.7 (1.7) 13.8 (1.6) 4.8 (1.0)Switzerland 24.3 (1.0) 22.5 (0.7) 14.2 (1.1) 7.0 (0.9)Australia 24.0 (0.7) 23.3 (0.6) 14.0 (0.5) 5.8 (0.4)New Zealand 23.2 (0.9) 21.9 (0.8) 14.1 (0.6) 6.6 (0.4)Newfoundland and Labrador 27.5 (1.5) 23.6 (1.4) 11.2 (1.1) 3.0 (0.5)Saskatchewan 26.7 (1.5) 23.7 (1.5) 11.7 (1.1) 3.2 (0.5)Czech Republic 24.3 (0.9) 20.8 (0.9) 12.9 (0.8) 5.3 (0.5)Nova Scotia 28.3 (1.1) 22.3 (1.4) 11.3 (1.1) 3.0 (0.6)Iceland 26.1 (0.9) 23.2 (0.8) 11.7 (0.6) 3.7 (0.4)Denmark 26.2 (0.9) 21.9 (0.8) 11.8 (0.9) 4.1 (0.5)New Brunswick 27.4 (1.0) 22.0 (1.0) 10.1 (0.8) 3.4 (0.4)France 25.9 (1.0) 22.1 (1.0) 11.6 (0.7) 3.5 (0.4)Sweden 25.5 (0.9) 19.8 (0.8) 11.6 (0.6) 4.1 (0.5)Austria 24.9 (1.1) 20.5 (0.8) 10.5 (0.9) 3.7 (0.5)Ireland 28.0 (0.8) 20.2 (1.1) 9.1 (0.8) 2.2 (0.3)Germany 22.6 (0.8) 20.6 (1.0) 12.2 (0.9) 4.1 (0.5)Prince Edward Island 28.0 (1.8) 20.5 (1.2) 7.5 (0.8) 2.6 (0.7)

OECD average 23.7 (0.2) 19.1 (0.2) 10.6 (0.1) 4.0 (0.1)

Slovak Republic 24.9 (1.1) 18.9 (0.8) 9.8 (0.7) 2.9 (0.4)Norway 25.2 (1.0) 18.9 (1.0) 8.7 (0.6) 2.7 (0.3)Luxembourg 25.9 (0.8) 18.7 (0.8) 8.5 (0.6) 2.4 (0.3)Poland 25.3 (0.9) 17.7 (0.9) 7.8 (0.5) 2.3 (0.3)Hungary 24.3 (0.9) 18.2 (0.9) 8.2 (0.7) 2.5 (0.4)Spain 26.7 (1.0) 17.7 (0.6) 6.5 (0.6) 1.4 (0.2)Latvia 26.3 (1.2) 16.6 (1.2) 6.3 (0.7) 1.6 (0.4)United States 23.8 (0.8) 16.6 (0.7) 8.0 (0.5) 2.0 (0.4)Russian Federation 23.1 (1.0) 13.2 (0.9) 5.4 (0.6) 1.6 (0.4)Portugal 24.0 (1.0) 13.4 (0.9) 4.6 (0.5) 0.8 (0.2)Italy 22.9 (0.8) 13.4 (0.7) 5.5 (0.4) 1.5 (0.2)Greece 20.2 (1.0) 10.6 (0.9) 3.4 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2)Serbia and Montenegro (Ser.) 18.9 (1.1) 8.1 (0.9) 2.1 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1)Turkey 13.5 (1.3) 6.8 (1.0) 3.1 (0.8) 2.4 (1.0)Uruguay 16.8 (0.7) 8.2 (0.7) 2.3 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2)Thailand 13.7 (0.8) 5.3 (0.5) 1.5 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1)Mexico 10.1 (0.8) 2.7 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)Indonesia 5.5 (0.7) 1.4 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)Tunisia 5.7 (0.6) 1.4 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)Brazil 6.8 (0.8) 2.7 (0.5) 0.9 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2)

1. Jurisdictions are ordered by estimated average scores.Note: Percentage distributions may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Source: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2004. Measuring Up:Canadian Results of the OECD PISA Study: The Performance of Canada’s Youth in Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving 2003. FirstFindings for Canadians Aged 15. Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 81-590-XIE-2. Ottawa.

255

Chapter C tables C4


Table C.4.2

Estimated average scores, standard errors and percentage distribution of 15-year-old students by reading proficiency on thePISA combined reading literacy scale, Canada, provinces and selected countries, 2000

Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2

Estimated Standard Standard Standard StandardCountry and province1 average scores error percentage error percentage error percentage error

Alberta 550 (3.3) 1.8 (0.5) 6.1 (0.7) 14.7 (0.8)Finland 546 (2.6) 1.7 (0.5) 5.2 (0.4) 14.3 (0.7)British Columbia 538 (2.9) 2.4 (0.5) 7.0 (0.7) 17.5 (0.9)Quebec 536 (3.0) 2.0 (0.4) 6.4 (0.6) 17.2 (0.9)

Canada 534 (1.6) 2.4 (0.3) 7.2 (0.3) 18.0 (0.4)

Ontario 533 (3.3) 2.6 (0.6) 7.4 (0.6) 18.2 (0.8)Manitoba 529 (3.5) 2.0 (0.4) 8.6 (0.9) 18.7 (1.2)Saskatchewan 529 (2.7) 2.0 (0.5) 7.3 (0.5) 19.2 (0.9)New Zealand 529 (2.8) 4.8 (0.5) 8.9 (0.5) 17.2 (0.9)Australia 528 (3.5) 3.3 (0.5) 9.1 (0.8) 19.0 (1.1)Ireland 527 (3.2) 3.1 (0.5) 7.9 (0.8) 17.9 (0.9)Korea 525 (2.4) 0.9 (0.2) 4.8 (0.6) 18.6 (0.9)United Kingdom 523 (2.6) 3.6 (0.4) 9.2 (0.5) 19.6 (0.7)Japan 522 (5.2) 2.7 (0.6) 7.3 (1.1) 18.0 (1.3)Nova Scotia 521 (2.3) 2.9 (0.4) 9.2 (0.9) 20.7 (1.2)Newfoundland and Labrador 517 (2.8) 3.5 (0.5) 10.3 (0.9) 21.0 (1.3)Prince Edward Island 517 (2.4) 2.4 (0.5) 10.4 (1.2) 21.9 (1.2)Sweden 516 (2.2) 3.3 (0.4) 9.3 (0.6) 20.3 (0.7)Belgium 507 (3.6) 7.7 (1.0) 11.3 (0.7) 16.8 (0.7)Austria 507 (2.4) 4.4 (0.4) 10.2 (0.6) 21.7 (0.9)Iceland 507 (1.5) 4.0 (0.3) 10.5 (0.6) 22.0 (0.8)Norway 505 (2.8) 6.3 (0.6) 11.2 (0.8) 19.5 (0.8)France 505 (2.7) 4.2 (0.6) 11.0 (0.8) 22.0 (0.8)United States 504 (7.1) 6.4 (1.2) 11.5 (1.2) 21.0 (1.2)New Brunswick 501 (1.8) 5.1 (0.5) 11.7 (0.8) 23.1 (1.2)

OECD average 500 (0.6) 6.2 (0.4) 12.1 (0.4) 21.8 (0.4)

Denmark 497 (2.4) 5.9 (0.6) 12.0 (0.7) 22.5 (0.9)Switzerland 494 (4.3) 7.0 (0.7) 13.3 (0.9) 21.4 (1.0)Spain 493 (2.7) 4.1 (0.5) 12.2 (0.9) 25.7 (0.7)Czech Republic 492 (2.4) 6.1 (0.6) 11.4 (0.7) 24.8 (1.2)Italy 487 (2.9) 5.4 (0.9) 13.5 (0.9) 25.6 (1.0)Germany 484 (2.5) 9.9 (0.7) 12.7 (0.6) 22.3 (0.8)Liechtenstein 483 (4.1) 7.6 (1.5) 14.5 (2.1) 23.2 (2.9)Hungary 480 (4.0) 6.9 (0.7) 15.8 (1.2) 25.0 (1.1)Poland 479 (4.5) 8.7 (1.0) 14.6 (1.0) 24.1 (1.4)Greece 474 (5.0) 8.7 (1.2) 15.7 (1.4) 25.9 (1.4)Portugal 470 (4.5) 9.6 (1.0) 16.7 (1.2) 25.3 (1.0)Russian Federation 462 (4.2) 9.0 (1.0) 18.5 (1.1) 29.2 (0.8)Latvia 458 (5.3) 12.7 (1.3) 17.9 (1.3) 26.3 (1.1)Luxembourg 441 (1.6) 14.2 (0.7) 20.9 (0.8) 27.5 (1.3)Mexico 422 (3.3) 16.1 (1.2) 28.1 (1.4) 30.3 (1.1)Brazil 396 (3.1) 23.3 (1.4) 32.5 (1.2) 27.7 (1.3)


256

C4


Table C.4.2

Estimated average scores, standard errors and percentage distribution of 15-year-old students by reading proficiency on thePISA combined reading literacy scale, Canada, provinces and selected countries, 2000 (concluded)

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Standard Standard StandardCountry and province1 percentage error percentage error percentage error

Alberta 26.7 (1.2) 28.2 (1.0) 22.5 (1.4)Finland 28.7 (0.8) 31.6 (0.9) 18.5 (0.9)British Columbia 26.3 (1.1) 28.7 (1.0) 18.1 (1.1)Quebec 29.4 (1.1) 29.2 (1.1) 15.9 (1.0)

Canada 28.0 (0.5) 27.7 (0.6) 16.8 (0.5)

Ontario 27.5 (0.9) 27.6 (1.1) 16.7 (1.0)Manitoba 29.6 (1.5) 25.2 (1.2) 15.9 (1.2)Saskatchewan 29.8 (1.3) 27.8 (1.1) 14.0 (1.0)New Zealand 24.6 (1.1) 25.8 (1.1) 18.7 (1.0)Australia 25.7 (1.1) 25.3 (0.9) 17.6 (1.2)Ireland 29.7 (1.1) 27.1 (1.1) 14.2 (0.8)Korea 38.8 (1.1) 31.1 (1.2) 5.7 (0.6)United Kingdom 27.5 (0.9) 24.4 (0.9) 15.6 (1.0)Japan 33.3 (1.3) 28.8 (1.7) 9.9 (1.1)Nova Scotia 29.0 (1.3) 24.6 (1.5) 13.6 (0.9)Newfoundland and Labrador 28.4 (1.4) 23.5 (1.2) 13.3 (0.9)Prince Edward Island 28.3 (1.5) 23.9 (1.6) 13.1 (1.1)Sweden 30.4 (1.0) 25.6 (1.0) 11.2 (0.7)Belgium 25.8 (0.9) 26.3 (0.9) 12.0 (0.7)Austria 29.9 (1.2) 24.9 (1.0) 8.8 (0.8)Iceland 30.8 (0.9) 23.6 (1.1) 9.1 (0.7)Norway 28.1 (0.8) 23.7 (0.9) 11.2 (0.7)France 30.6 (1.0) 23.7 (0.9) 8.5 (0.6)United States 27.4 (1.3) 21.5 (1.4) 12.2 (1.4)New Brunswick 29.7 (1.1) 21.0 (1.0) 9.5 (0.6)

OECD average 28.6 (0.4) 21.8 (0.4) 9.4 (0.4)

Denmark 29.5 (1.0) 22.0 (0.9) 8.1 (0.5)Switzerland 28.0 (1.0) 21.0 (1.0) 9.2 (1.0)Spain 32.8 (1.0) 21.1 (0.9) 4.2 (0.5)Czech Republic 30.9 (1.1) 19.8 (0.8) 7.0 (0.6)Italy 30.6 (1.0) 19.5 (1.1) 5.3 (0.5)Germany 26.8 (1.0) 19.4 (1.0) 8.8 (0.5)Liechtenstein 30.1 (3.4) 19.5 (2.2) 5.1 (1.6)Hungary 28.8 (1.3) 18.5 (1.1) 5.1 (0.8)Poland 28.2 (1.3) 18.6 (1.3) 5.9 (1.0)Greece 28.1 (1.7) 16.7 (1.4) 5.0 (0.7)Portugal 27.5 (1.2) 16.8 (1.1) 4.2 (0.5)Russian Federation 26.9 (1.1) 13.3 (1.0) 3.2 (0.5)Latvia 25.2 (1.3) 13.8 (1.1) 4.1 (0.6)Luxembourg 24.6 (1.1) 11.2 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3)Mexico 18.8 (1.2) 6.0 (0.7) 0.9 (0.2)Brazil 12.9 (1.1) 3.1 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2)

1. Jurisdictions are ordered by estimated average scores.Note: Percentage distributions may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Sources: OECD (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life. First Results from PISA 2000. Excel data tables.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2001. Measuring Up:Canadian Results of the OECD PISA Study: The Performance of Canada’s Youth in Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving. First Findingsfor Canadians Aged 15. Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 81-590-XIE. Ottawa.

257

Chapter C tables C4


Table C.4.3

Comparison of estimated average performance in mathematics for PISA 2003 and PISA 2000 assessments,Canada and provinces

PISA 2000 PISA 2003

Estimated average 95% confidence Estimated average 95% confidencescore interval score interval

Mathematics – space and shape

Canada 515 512 to 518 518 505 to 530

Newfoundland and Labrador 489 482 to 496 498 485 to 511Prince Edward Island 500 492 to 508 480 467 to 493Nova Scotia 498 491 to 505 498 485 to 510New Brunswick 497 490 to 504 498 485 to 510Quebec 536 531 to 541 528 514 to 543Ontario 504 498 to 510 512 499 to 526Manitoba 517 507 to 527 513 499 to 526Saskatchewan 507 500 to 514 500 486 to 514Alberta 523 516 to 530 534 520 to 549British Columbia 519 513 to 525 523 510 to 535

Mathematics – change and relationships

Canada 520 1 517 to 523 537 1 526 to 547

Newfoundland and Labrador 497 1 491 to 503 521 1 510 to 531Prince Edward Island 506 499 to 513 502 492 to 512Nova Scotia 505 500 to 510 517 507 to 528New Brunswick 497 1 492 to 502 513 1 503 to 524Quebec 529 524 to 534 538 524 to 551Ontario 513 1 508 to 518 536 1 524 to 548Manitoba 523 515 to 531 532 521 to 544Saskatchewan 517 511 to 523 520 508 to 532Alberta 533 1 527 to 539 554 1 542 to 567British Columbia 525 1 519 to 531 543 1 532 to 554

1. Statistically significant differences between 2000 and 2003. The confidence interval represents the range within which the score for the population islikely to fall, with 95% probability. Approximate confidence interval = average score +/- (1.96 x standard error). The confidence interval gives a rangewithin which the true mean is likely to fall. If two confidence intervals overlap, there is no significant difference between the means.

Note: The 2003 confidence interval includes a linking error associated with the uncertainty that results from making comparisons with PISA 2000 (seeStatistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).



258

C4


Table C.4.5

Comparison of estimated average performance in science, PISA 2003 and PISA 2000 assessments,Canada and provinces

PISA 2000 PISA 2003


Science

Canada 529 1 526 to 532 519 1 512 to 526

Newfoundland and Labrador 516 509 to 523 514 506 to 522Prince Edward Island 508 1 503 to 513 489 1 481 to 497Nova Scotia 516 510 to 522 505 498 to 513New Brunswick 497 492 to 502 498 491 to 505Quebec 541 1 534 to 548 520 1 508 to 532Ontario 522 515 to 529 515 506 to 525Manitoba 527 520 to 534 512 503 to 522Saskatchewan 522 1 516 to 528 506 1 495 to 516Alberta 546 539 to 553 539 527 to 552British Columbia 533 527 to 539 527 519 to 535

1. Statistically significant differences between 2000 and 2003. The confidence interval represents the range within which the score for the population islikely to fall, with 95% probability. Approximate confidence interval = average score +/- (1.96 x standard error). This confidence interval gives a rangewithin which the true mean is likely to fall. If two confidence intervals overlap, there is no significant difference between the means.

Notes: The 2003 confidence interval includes a linking error associated with the uncertainty that results from making comparisons with PISA 2000 (seeStatistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.). Due to rounding error, non-overlapping confidence intervals inScience for Saskatchewan and Canada share an upper or lower limit.


Table C.4.4

Comparison of estimated average performance in reading for PISA 2003 and PISA 2000 assessments,Canada and provinces

PISA 2000 PISA 2003


Reading

Canada 534 531 to 537 528 520 to 536

Newfoundland and Labrador 517 512 to 522 521 511 to 531Prince Edward Island 517 1 512 to 522 495 1 486 to 503Nova Scotia 521 516 to 526 513 504 to 521New Brunswick 501 497 to 505 503 494 to 511Quebec 536 530 to 542 525 514 to 536Ontario 533 527 to 539 530 520 to 540Manitoba 529 522 to 536 520 511 to 530Saskatchewan 529 1 524 to 534 512 1 501 to 523Alberta 550 544 to 556 543 532 to 554British Columbia 538 532 to 544 535 526 to 544

1. Statistically significant differences between 2000 and 2003. The confidence interval represents the range within which the score for the population islikely to fall, with 95% probability. Approximate confidence interval = average score +/- (1.96 x standard error). This confidence interval gives a rangewithin which the true mean is likely to fall. If two confidence intervals overlap, there is no significant difference between the means.

Note: The 2003 confidence interval includes a linking error associated with the uncertainty that results from making comparisons with PISA 2000 (seeStatistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-CanadianEducation Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).


259

Chapter C tables C4


Table C.4.6

Percentage of 13-year-old students at performance level 2 or above in SAIP assessments, Canada and jurisdictions

Science (written) Mathematics (content)

1996 1999 2004 1997 2001

Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence% interval % interval % interval % interval % interval

Canada 71.9 (0.8) 73.3 (0.8) 71.0 (0.8) 59.4 (0.8) 64.4 (0.8)Canada (English) .. .. .. .. 70.8 (0.9) .. .. .. ..Canada (French) .. .. .. .. 71.6 (1.5) .. .. .. ..

Newfoundland and Labrador 71.4 (3.0) 68.0 (2.6) 65.6 (2.9) 56.9 (3.3) 57.1 (3.7)Prince Edward Island 76.4 (2.7) 74.3 (2.9) 65.8 (2.7) 53.6 (3.2) 52.7 (3.8)Nova Scotia (English) 73.3 (2.9) 69.5 (3.3) 63.1 (3.0) 53.0 (3.3) 47.7 (3.3)Nova Scotia (French) 73.7 (0.0) 61.8 (3.5) 58.8 (0.0) 66.0 (0.0) 48.5 (8.6)New Brunswick (English) 70.6 (2.9) 69.4 (3.2) 61.7 (3.0) 54.6 (3.3) 51.9 (3.2)New Brunswick (French) 60.4 (2.9) 60.5 (3.1) 48.6 (2.9) 63.2 (3.0) 57.6 (3.4)Quebec (English) 72.6 (2.8) 69.6 (3.0) 67.9 (3.1) 65.3 (3.3) 66.6 (3.1)Quebec (French) 73.3 (2.6) 72.8 (2.8) 73.0 (2.8) 78.3 (2.6) 74.9 (2.9)Ontario (English) 67.4 (2.8) 72.1 (3.1) 71.8 (2.8) 50.0 (3.1) 63.4 (3.3)Ontario (French) 57.1 (3.1) 57.2 (3.3) 63.2 (3.1) 51.9 (3.0) 56.3 (4.3)Manitoba (English) 72.9 (2.8) 72.8 (3.0) 67.6 (2.9) 51.9 (3.3) 57.2 (3.0)Manitoba (French) 59.8 (3.4) 61.2 (3.7) 58.4 (2.6) 61.9 (3.2) 59.2 (4.0)Saskatchewan 76.1 (2.7) 75.5 (2.9) 65.9 (2.8) 47.9 (3.2) 52.1 (3.1)Alberta 83.0 (2.2) 82.5 (2.4) 77.9 (2.5) 64.7 (3.0) 70.6 (3.0)British Columbia 74.9 (2.6) 76.1 (2.9) 69.6 (3.0) 56.9 (3.0) 60.7 (2.9)Yukon 76.2 (3.7) 71.3 (2.6) 61.5 (2.1) 65.4 (5.2) 52.5 (7.0)Northwest Territories 40.6 (5.0) 52.2 (2.3) 48.7 (2.3) 31.4 (4.2) 40.5 (4.2)Nunavut … … 17.5 (2.5) … … … … 8.0 (2.9)


260

C4


Table C.4.6

Percentage of 13-year-old students at performance level 2 or above in SAIP assessments,Canada and jurisdictions (concluded)

Mathematics(problem solving) Writing

1997 2001 2002

Confidence Confidence Confidence% interval % interval % interval

Canada 52.2 (0.9) 67.6 (0.9) 83.5 (0.7)Canada (English) .. .. .. .. 82.4 (0.8)Canada (French) .. .. .. .. 87.3 (1.2)

Newfoundland and Labrador 43.6 (3.3) 58.2 (3.9) 74.8 (3.0)Prince Edward Island 49.3 (3.2) 51.8 (4.2) 77.9 (2.7)Nova Scotia (English) 46.0 (3.3) 50.9 (3.4) 75.6 (2.7)Nova Scotia (French) 48.1 (0.0) 57.8 (10.6) 72.8 (2.7)New Brunswick (English) 47.2 (3.3) 57.9 (3.3) 77.6 (2.6)New Brunswick (French) 53.2 (3.1) 65.5 (3.6) 78.5 (2.5)Quebec (English) 57.9 (3.4) 69.2 (3.3) 79.0 (2.7)Quebec (French) 66.8 (3.0) 71.0 (3.6) 88.4 (2.2)Ontario (English) 45.4 (3.1) 68.7 (3.3) 85.3 (2.4)Ontario (French) 43.0 (3.0) 68.8 (4.5) 79.5 (2.9)Manitoba (English) 45.2 (3.3) 60.4 (3.0) 83.0 (2.3)Manitoba (French) 52.1 (3.3) 71.1 (4.0) 75.0 (2.0)Saskatchewan 51.2 (3.2) 60.8 (3.2) 75.4 (2.8)Alberta 57.8 (3.1) 76.5 (2.9) 82.6 (2.7)British Columbia 47.8 (3.1) 63.3 (2.9) 80.8 (2.7)Yukon 40.7 (5.2) 63.7 (7.8) 67.6 (2.4)Northwest Territories 27.5 (4.1) 32.9 (5.1) 57.7 (2.4)Nunavut … … 2.3 (2.3) … …

Notes: This table shows the cumulative percentages of students at or above level 2. The confidence interval represents the range within which the score forthe population is likely to fall, with 95% probability. Approximate confidence interval = percentage +/- (1.96 x standard error). Results are weightedso as to correctly represent each population.For the writing assessment, caution is advised when comparing achievement results based on assessment instruments prepared in different languages,despite the extensive efforts to ensure equivalence for the sake of equity and fairness for all students. Every language has unique features that are notreadily equivalent and render comparisons between languages inherently difficult.The 2002 SAIP writing assessment is the third in a series of writing assessments. Other writing assessments were administered in 1994 and 1998,but their results cannot be compared with those from 2002.Results for only the written portion of the science assessment are shown in this table. The practical tasks component is not reported on because itwas not assessed in 2004 (though it was assessed in 1996 and 1999).Nunavut did not participate in the 2004 science assessment or the 2002 writing assessment.While SAIP mathematics assessments were conducted in 1993, 1997, and 2001, only those conducted in 1997 and 2001 are comparable because ofsignificant changes in scoring methods and assessment design since 1993.Nova Scotia (French) has no confidence interval in 1996, 1997, and 2004, because all students in that population were tested.

Sources: CMEC. 2005. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Science III 2004. CMEC. 2003. School Achievement Indicators Program(SAIP). Writing III 2002. CMEC. 2002. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Mathematics III 2001.

261

Chapter C tables C4


Table C.4.7

Percentage of 16-year-old students at performance level 3 or above in SAIP assessments, Canada and jurisdictions

Science (written) Mathematics (content)

1996 1999 2004 1997 2001

Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence% interval % interval % interval % interval % interval

Canada 69.0 (0.8) 76.1 (0.8) 64.0 (0.9) 59.8 (0.9) 49.7 (1.0)Canada (English) .. .. .. .. 64.0 (1.0) .. .. .. ..Canada (French) .. .. .. .. 63.9 (2.0) .. .. .. ..

Newfoundland and Labrador 64.4 (3.2) 72.7 (2.8) 62.3 (3.1) 43.0 (3.4) 36 (3.7)Prince Edward Island 68.6 (3.3) 81.3 (3.1) 58.0 (3.1) 48.5 (3.6) 43.2 (4.1)Nova Scotia (English) 68.5 (3.4) 74.6 (2.4) 59.7 (3.3) 57.3 (3.5) 43.2 (3.5)Nova Scotia (French) 80.3 (0.0) 73.8 (7.6) 58.5 (3.1) 76.1 (0.0) 55.7 (9.5)New Brunswick (English) 69.8 (3.1) 72.6 (3.3) 57.6 (3.1) 47.3 (3.5) 42.9 (3.4)New Brunswick (French) 58.0 (3.1) 69.4 (3.1) 57.2 (3.1) 63.4 (3.2) 50.6 (3.6)Quebec (English) 65.6 (3.0) 76.7 (2.7) 57.7 (3.4) 74.3 (3.2) … …Quebec (French) 73.4 (2.6) 80.5 (2.4) 65.8 (3.1) 81.0 (2.7) … …Ontario (English) 64.9 (3.0) 72.2 (3.4) 64.0 (3.6) 52.0 (3.2) 50.6 (3.7)Ontario (French) 51.4 (3.3) 60.1 (4.0) 48.2 (3.5) 49.2 (3.3) 41.7 (4.1)Manitoba (English) 67.8 (3.0) 79.8 (2.6) 59.3 (3.3) 53.4 (3.5) 48.9 (3.3)Manitoba (French) 67.8 (4.4) 76.2 (3.3) 58.2 (4.3) 61.2 (5.5) 63.2 (4.8)Saskatchewan 71.0 (3.1) 77.4 (2.9) 59.3 (3.1) 50.0 (3.3) 42.4 (3.2)Alberta 78.6 (2.4) 85.8 (2.3) 72.4 (2.8) 61.4 (3.2) 60.5 (3.9)British Columbia 69.2 (2.9) 75.8 (3.2) 63.6 (3.1) 54.6 (3.2) 46.4 (3.3)Yukon 73.9 (6.3) 74.0 (3.4) 60.7 (3.2) 59.2 (7.7) 44.5 (7.6)Northwest Territories 44.4 (7.1) 67.8 (3.7) 49.1 (3.2) 37.8 (5.8) 35.9 (5.8)Nunavut … … 23.8 (6.2) … … … … 11.8 (5.1)


262

C4


Table C.4.7

Percentage of 16-year-old students at performance level 3 or above in SAIP assessments,Canada and jurisdictions (concluded)

Mathematics (problem solving) Writing

1997 2001 2002

Confidence Confidence Confidence% interval % interval % interval

Canada 39.8 (0.9) 47.1 (1.1) 60.6 (0.9)Canada (English) .. .. .. .. 57.7 (1.1)Canada (French) .. .. .. .. 71.7 (1.9)

Newfoundland and Labrador 30.8 (3.2) 37.4 (3.9) 58.2 (3.7)Prince Edward Island 27.5 (3.2) 39.2 (4.1) 51.8 (3.5)Nova Scotia (English) 36.8 (3.5) 40.3 (3.4) 52.8 (3.5)Nova Scotia (French) 44.2 (0.0) 49.2 (12.5) 42.8 (4.1)New Brunswick (English) 33.6 (3.3) 41.8 (3.5) 58.4 (3.2)New Brunswick (French) 37.1 (3.2) 53.2 (4.0) 56.4 (3.3)Quebec (English) 46.5 (3.6) … … 66.6 (3.5)Quebec (French) 57.0 (3.4) … … 74.5 (3.0)Ontario (English) 33.0 (3.0) 46.5 (3.9) 57.5 (3.6)Ontario (French) 27.8 (3.0) 38.9 (4.5) 44.8 (4.2)Manitoba (English) 40.2 (3.5) 47.6 (3.4) 60.0 (3.3)Manitoba (French) 45.3 (5.5) 59.2 (5.2) 42.3 (3.5)Saskatchewan 38.6 (3.3) 45.3 (3.4) 57.1 (3.1)Alberta 44.8 (3.3) 59.0 (4.1) 59.2 (3.7)British Columbia 31.2 (3.0) 45.1 (3.4) 57.0 (3.7)Yukon 30.8 (6.9) 31.5 (8.1) 50.8 (3.7)Northwest Territories 18.5 (4.8) 20.0 (6.9) 43.0 (3.8)Nunavut … … 5.2 (5.7) … …

Notes: This table shows the cumulative percentages of students at or above level 3. The confidence interval represents the range within which the score forthe population is likely to fall, with 95% probability. Approximate confidence interval = average score +/- (1.96 x standard error). Results areweighted so as to correctly represent each population.For the writing assessment, caution is advised when comparing achievement results based on assessment instruments prepared in different languages,despite the extensive efforts to ensure equivalence for the sake of equity and fairness for all students. Every language has unique features that are notreadily equivalent and render comparisons between languages inherently difficult.The 2002 SAIP writing assessment is the third in a series of writing assessments. Other writing assessments were administered in 1994 and 1998,but their results cannot be compared with those from 2002.Results for only the written portion of the science assessment are shown in this table. The practical tasks component is not reported on because itwas not assessed in 2004 (though it was assessed in 1996 and 1999).Nunavut did not participate in the 2004 science assessment or the 2002 writing assessment.While SAIP mathematics assessments were conducted in 1993, 1997, and 2001, only those conducted in 1997 and 2001 are comparable because ofsignificant changes in scoring methods and assessment design since 1993.Quebec 16-year-olds did not participate in the 2001 mathematics assessment.Nova Scotia (French) has no confidence interval in 1996 and 1997 because all students in that population were tested.

Sources: CMEC. 2005. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Science III 2004. CMEC. 2003. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP).Writing III 2002. CMEC. 2002. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). Mathematics III 2001.

263

Chapter C tables C5


Tables C5

Table C.5.1

Number of students per computer,1 proportion of home computers connected to the Internet, 15-year-old students,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003

Home computers connectedStudents per computer1 to the Internet

number Standard error percentage Standard error

Canada 6 (0.13) 89 (0.29)

Australia 4 (0.11) 85 (0.55)Belgium 11 (0.42) 75 (0.80)Finland 7 (0.32) 77 (0.77)France … … 56 (1.30)Germany 17 (0.54) 73 (0.83)Italy 12 (0.55) 62 (0.97)Japan 8 (0.30) 60 (1.11)Mexico 23 (1.46) 18 (1.61)Sweden 8 (0.24) 90 (0.55)Switzerland 10 (0.81) 79 (0.91)United Kingdom 5 (0.15) 81 (0.64)United States 9 (4.90) 82 (0.88)OECD countries (mean) 15 (1.57) 64 (0.39)Russian Federation 14 (0.98) 86 0.98

Newfoundland and Labrador 5 (0.08) 80 (1.05)Prince Edward Island 6 (0.02) 84 (0.81)Nova Scotia 5 (0.07) 87 (0.77)New Brunswick 6 (0.01) 81 (0.61)Quebec 8 (0.43) 84 (0.88)Ontario 5 (0.18) 92 (0.66)Manitoba 4 (0.12) 84 (1.26)Saskatchewan 5 (0.16) 85 (0.87)Alberta 5 (0.28) 88 (0.67)British Columbia 6 (0.24) 91 (0.59)

1. Total number of students enrolled in the school divided by the total number of computers for the school in which 15-year-olds are enrolled.Note: Some data previouly presented in Indicator C5 of PCEIP 2003 using PISA 2000 are not available from PISA 2003.Sources: OECD PISA database, 2003.

PISA Canada database, 2003.


264

C5


Table C.5.2

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported availability of computers at home and at school,1 Canada,other countries and provinces, 2003

Computer available at home Computer available at school

Yes No Yes No

Standard Standard Standard Standard% error % error % error % error

Canada 95 (0.24) 5 (0.24) 99 (0.13) 1 (0.13)

Australia 97 (0.23) 3 (0.23) 100 (0.07) 0 (0.07)Belgium 94 (0.34) 6 (0.34) 91 (0.78) 9 (0.78)Finland 91 (0.46) 9 (0.46) 97 (0.73) 3 (0.73)Germany 96 (0.37) 4 (0.37) 93 (0.56) 7 (0.56)Mexico 51 (1.88) 49 (1.88) 83 (1.64) 17 (1.64)Sweden 98 (0.24) 2 (0.24) 97 (0.56) 3 (0.56)Switzerland 97 (0.30) 3 (0.30) 94 (0.73) 6 (0.73)United States 90 (0.69) 10 (0.69) 97 (0.38) 3 (0.38)OECD countries (mean) 83 (0.33) 17 (0.33) 91 (0.36) 9 (0.36)Russian Federation 37 (2.00) 63 (2.00) 76 (1.70) 24 (1.70)

Newfoundland and Labrador 90 (0.71) 10 (0.71) 99 (0.27) 1 (0.27)Prince Edward Island 93 (0.58) 7 (0.58) 99 (0.24) 1 (0.24)Nova Scotia 94 (0.50) 6 (0.50) 99 (0.24) 1 (0.24)New Brunswick 90 (0.53) 10 (0.53) 98 (0.30) 2 (0.30)Quebec 93 (0.66) 7 (0.66) 97 (0.47) 3 (0.47)Ontario 97 (0.41) 3 (0.41) 99 (0.14) 1 (0.14)Manitoba 94 (0.73) 6 (0.73) 100 (0.17) 0 (0.17)Saskatchewan 94 (0.64) 6 (0.64) 100 (0.12) 0 (0.12)Alberta 96 (0.66) 4 (0.66) 100 (0.20) 0 (0.20)British Columbia 96 (0.44) 4 (0.44) 99 (0.21) 1 (0.21)

1. Totals might not add to 100 due to rounding.Note: Some data previouly presented in Indicator C5 of PCEIP 2003 using PISA 2000 are not available from PISA 2003.Sources: OECD PISA database, 2003.


265

Chapter C tables C5


Table C.5.3

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported using computers at home and at school,1 by frequency of use,2

Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003

Computer use at home

Frequent Infrequent Never

% Standard error % Standard error % Standard error

Canada 90 (0.29) 6 (0.27) 5 (0.21)

Australia 87 (0.47) 9 (0.35) 4 (0.23)Belgium 84 (0.53) 10 (0.41) 6 (0.34)Finland 78 (0.57) 14 (0.50) 8 (0.41)Germany 82 (0.63) 14 (0.54) 4 (0.36)Mexico 48 (1.77) 7 (0.51) 44 (1.89)Sweden 89 (0.52) 8 (0.44) 3 (0.29)Switzerland 81 (0.64) 15 (0.58) 3 (0.36)United States 83 (0.71) 9 (0.52) 8 (0.52)OECD countries (mean) 72 (0.37) 13 (0.22) 15 (0.31)Russian Federation 43 (1.98) 3 (0.26) 54 (2.04)

Newfoundland and Labrador 85 (0.91) 5 (0.52) 10 (0.73)Prince Edward Island 88 (0.86) 6 (0.61) 7 (0.57)Nova Scotia 89 (0.66) 5 (0.48) 6 (0.51)New Brunswick 83 (0.69) 7 (0.48) 10 (0.57)Quebec 85 (0.58) 8 (0.67) 7 (0.50)Ontario 93 (0.67) 4 (0.46) 3 (0.42)Manitoba 87 (1.04) 7 (0.69) 6 (0.68)Saskatchewan 87 (0.87) 7 (0.58) 6 (0.62)Alberta 89 (0.76) 6 (0.68) 4 (0.68)British Columbia 91 (0.64) 6 (0.52) 4 (0.41)

Computer use at school


% Standard error % Standard error % Standard error

Canada 40 (0.89) 52 (0.79) 8 (0.43)

Australia 59 (1.01) 38 (0.90) 3 (0.26)Belgium 27 (0.94) 53 (1.02) 20 (1.04)Finland 36 (1.45) 59 (1.30) 5 (0.81)Germany 23 (1.21) 55 (1.38) 21 (1.20)Mexico 54 (1.85) 26 (1.22) 20 (1.62)Sweden 48 (1.55) 45 (1.20) 6 (0.76)Switzerland 30 (1.40) 57 (1.24) 13 (0.89)United States 43 (1.38) 49 (1.17) 8 (0.68)OECD countries (mean) 41 (0.61) 44 (0.56) 15 (0.51)Russian Federation 43 (2.12) 42 (1.39) 15 (1.55)

Newfoundland and Labrador 51 (1.40) 45 (1.36) 5 (0.62)Prince Edward Island 47 (1.36) 48 (1.35) 6 (0.66)Nova Scotia 39 (1.06) 54 (1.11) 8 (0.58)New Brunswick 26 (0.67) 59 (0.80) 15 (0.63)Quebec 26 (1.65) 57 (1.47) 17 (1.55)Ontario 44 (2.01) 52 (1.89) 3 (0.43)Manitoba 58 (1.32) 39 (1.19) 3 (0.53)Saskatchewan 56 (1.24) 41 (1.15) 3 (0.36)Alberta 49 (2.84) 47 (2.76) 4 (0.90)British Columbia 38 (2.07) 54 (1.60) 8 (0.90)

1. Totals might not add to 100 due to rounding.2. Frequent: Use computer most every day or a few times each week.

Infrequent: Use computer between once a week and once a month or less than once a month.Never: Computer never used.

Sources: OECD PISA database, 2003.



266

C5


Table C.5.4

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported using computers to help them learn school material,1 by frequency of use,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003

Between onceAlmost A few times a week and Less than once

every day each week once a month a month Never

percentage

Canada 9 20 24 20 28

Australia 7 25 26 21 22Belgium 6 18 21 19 36Czech Republic 6 20 25 21 28Finland 3 15 38 31 13Germany 7 20 24 22 27Mexico 13 31 19 13 23New Zealand 8 22 25 22 23Sweden 5 18 25 22 29Switzerland 5 15 20 23 37United States 12 23 24 19 21OECD countries (mean) 9 21 21 18 30Russian Federation 12 27 25 17 18

Newfoundland and Labrador 9 27 27 16 22Prince Edward Island 9 19 22 23 27Nova Scotia 8 21 24 22 24New Brunswick 7 15 20 22 36Quebec 5 10 18 22 45Ontario 12 21 25 18 23Manitoba 8 19 26 23 24Saskatchewan 9 22 25 21 24Alberta 9 24 25 21 21British Columbia 9 26 26 18 21

1. Totals might not add to 100 due to rounding.Sources: OECD PISA database, 2003.


267

Chapter C tables C5


Table C.5.5

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported use of computers at home and at school,1 by frequency of use2 and sex,Canada, other countries and provinces, 2003

Computer use at home


Female Male Female Male Female Male

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard StandardCountries and provinces % error % error % error % error % error % error

Canada 88 (0.48) 91 (0.39) 7 (0.42) 5 (0.32) 5 (0.29) 4 (0.26)

Australia 86 (0.63) 89 (0.56) 10 (0.52) 8 (0.54) 4 (0.39) 4 (0.42)Belgium 81 (0.85) 86 (0.65) 12 (0.61) 8 (0.54) 7 (0.56) 6 (0.44)Finland 69 (0.94) 86 (0.63) 20 (0.93) 8 (0.49) 10 (0.61) 6 (0.44)Germany 75 (1.00) 90 (0.69) 21 (0.91) 6 (0.55) 5 (0.48) 4 (0.41)Mexico 47 (2.02) 50 (1.99) 8 (0.57) 7 (0.80) 46 (2.08) 43 (2.05)Sweden 84 (0.83) 94 (0.54) 12 (0.73) 4 (0.44) 4 (0.46) 2 (0.27)Switzerland 75 (0.87) 87 (0.79) 21 (0.83) 10 (0.64) 4 (0.47) 3 (0.51)United States 82 (0.93) 84 (0.83) 9 (0.74) 9 (0.59) 9 (0.67) 7 (0.67)OECD countries (mean) 68 (0.53) 75.1 (0.45) 16 (0.36) 11 (0.33) 16 (0.37) 14 (0.36)Russian Federation 35 (1.97) 50 (2.42) 4 (0.36) 3 (0.34) 61 (2.04) 47 (2.46)

Newfoundland and Labrador 85 (1.17) 86 (1.33) 4 (0.65) 5 (0.75) 11 (1.00) 9 (1.01)Prince Edward Island 88 (1.26) 87 (1.28) 6 (0.88) 6 (0.88) 6 (0.86) 7 (0.86)Nova Scotia 88 (1.00) 89 (0.96) 5 (0.64) 5 (0.82) 7 (0.85) 6 (0.64)New Brunswick 82 (0.93) 84 (0.98) 8 (0.66) 6 (0.57) 10 (0.68) 10 (0.85)Quebec 81 (1.08) 89 (0.95) 11 (1.08) 5 (0.72) 8 (0.70) 6 (0.78)Ontario 92 (1.00) 94 (0.66) 5 (0.76) 3 (0.47) 3 (0.54) 3 (0.49)Manitoba 87 (1.09) 88 (1.56) 7 (0.91) 6 (0.87) 6 (0.84) 6 (1.04)Saskatchewan 87 (1.14) 87 (1.32) 7 (0.76) 7 (0.95) 6 (0.70) 6 (0.87)Alberta 88 (1.49) 91 (1.06) 6 (1.03) 6 (0.93) 5 (1.09) 3 (0.71)British Columbia 89 (0.90) 92 (0.76) 6 (0.76) 5 (0.60) 4 (0.57) 3 (0.50)

Computer use at school


Female Male Female Male Female Male

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard StandardCountries and provinces % error % error % error % error % error % error

Canada 35 (1.00) 47 (1.11) 57 (0.95) 46 (1.02) 8 (0.51) 7 (0.48)

Australia 55 (1.37) 63 (1.19) 42 (1.24) 34 (1.06) 3 (0.35) 3 (0.30)Belgium 26 (1.30) 27 (1.07) 54 (1.37) 53 (1.27) 20 (1.40) 20 (1.22)Finland 25 (1.42) 47 (1.91) 68 (1.40) 50 (1.80) 7 (1.10) 2 (0.62)Germany 21 (1.47) 25 (1.56) 55 (1.83) 55 (1.60) 23 (1.47) 19 (1.40)Mexico 53 (2.31) 56 (1.92) 27 (1.43) 24 (1.41) 21 (1.75) 20 (1.80)Sweden 41 (1.66) 56 (1.88) 52 (1.37) 39 (1.60) 7 (0.70) 6 (1.01)Switzerland 26 (1.54) 33 (2.00) 59 (1.68) 56 (1.86) 15 (1.14) 11 (0.96)United States 39 (1.58) 46 (1.58) 52 (1.45) 46 (1.42) 8 (0.96) 7 (0.68)OECD countries (mean) 39 (0.68) 42 (0.71) 46 (0.69) 43 (0.62) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.55)Russian Federation 42 (2.48) 44 (2.02) 45 (1.81) 39 (1.24) 13 (1.90) 17 (1.63)

Newfoundland and Labrador 47 (1.66) 56 (2.00) 49 (1.69) 40 (2.09) 5 (0.90) 4 (0.80)Prince Edward Island 46 (1.78) 48 (1.82) 50 (1.86) 45 (1.74) 5 (0.78) 7 (0.98)Nova Scotia 33 (1.33) 44 (1.60) 59 (1.36) 49 (1.75) 8 (0.79) 7 (0.97)New Brunswick 23 (1.04) 30 (1.10) 62 (1.29) 56 (1.26) 15 (0.82) 14 (1.06)Quebec 20 (2.04) 32 (1.77) 62 (2.12) 52 (1.55) 18 (2.01) 16 (1.49)Ontario 38 (2.09) 52 (2.51) 58 (2.02) 45 (2.37) 4 (0.51) 3 (0.66)Manitoba 54 (1.94) 62 (1.68) 43 (1.81) 35 (1.74) 4 (0.69) 3 (0.63)Saskatchewan 51 (1.85) 62 (1.98) 46 (1.84) 35 (1.91) 3 (0.58) 2 (0.49)Alberta 44 (3.11) 54 (3.20) 52 (2.70) 42 (3.52) 4 (1.16) 4 (1.05)British Columbia 32 (2.26) 45 (2.45) 60 (1.95) 48 (1.83) 8 (1.12) 8 (1.03)

1. Totals might not add to 100 due to rounding.2. Frequent: Use computer most every day or a few times each week.

Infrequent: Use computer between once a week and once a month or less than once a month.Never: Computer never used.

Sources: OECD PISA database, 2003.PISA Canada database, 2003.

Tables D


Chapter D tablesTable D.1.1Number of registered apprentices, Canada andjurisdictions, 1994 and 2004 271

Table D.1.2Number of registered apprentices, by sex and majortrade group, Canada, 1994 and 2004 271

Table D.1.3Number and percentage distribution of registeredapprentices, by age group, Canada, 1994 and 2004 272

Table D.1.4Public college and institute full-time enrolment(headcount), by sex, Canada and jurisdictions,2003/2004 and 2004/2005 272

Table D.1.5University enrolment, by sex and registration status,Canada and provinces, 1994/1995, 1999/2000 and2004/2005 273

Table D.1.6Percentage of males relative to total full-timeuniversity enrolment, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005 274

Table D.2.1Number of registered apprenticeship completions,Canada and jurisdictions, 1994 and 2004 275

Table D.2.2Number of registered apprenticeship completions,by sex and trade group, Canada, 1994 and 2004 275

Table D.2.3Number of diplomas and degrees granted andgraduation rates, by level of education, Canada,1976 to 2004 276

Table D.2.4Graduation rates, by program level and jurisdictionof study, Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2004 277

Table D.2.5Number of graduates from public colleges andinstitutes, by sex and type of credential,Canada and jurisdictions, 2003/2004 and2004/2005 279

Table D.2.6University graduation rates, by level of degree,sex and field of study, Canada, 1994 and 2004 281

Table D.2.7Number of university degrees/diplomas/certificatesgranted, by sex and field of study, Canada andprovinces, 1994 282

Table D.2.8Number of university degrees/diplomas/certificatesgranted, by sex and field of study, Canada andprovinces, 2004 283

Table D.3.1Number of full-time educators in universities,by rank and sex, Canada and provinces, 1994/1995and 2004/2005 285

Table D.3.2Age distribution and median age of full-timeuniversity educators, by sex, Canada and provinces,2004/2005 287

Table D.3.3Age distribution of full-time university educatorsand of full-time employed labour force, Canadaand provinces, 2004/2005 288

Table D.3.4Number and salary of full-time educators inuniversities, by rank and sex, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005 290

Table D.4.1Total domestic expenditures on R&D as a percentageof GDP, Canada in relation to all OECD countries,2004 (or latest available year) 293

Table D.4.2Total domestic expenditures on R&D as a percentageof GDP, Canada and jurisdictions, G-7, and leadingOECD countries, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003and 2004 294

Table D.4.3Percentage of total R&D by sector, Canada andjurisdictions, G-7, leading OECD countries, 2004 295

270



Table D.4.4Expenditures on R&D, and percentage change,Canada and provinces, 1991, 2000, 2002, 2003and 2004 (in real 2001 dollars) 296

Table D.4.5Sources of funds for university R&D expenditures inmillions of real 2001 dollars and as a percentage oftotal funding, Canada and provinces, 1991, 1995,2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 298

Table D.5.1Comparison of provinces and territories based onaverage proficiency scores, by literacy domain,population aged 16 and over, 2003 303

Table D.5.2Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by urban/ruralstatus, Canada and jurisdictions, populationaged 16 and over, 2003 305

Table D.5.3Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by age groupand sex, Canada and jurisdictions, populationaged 16 and over, 2003 306

Table D.5.4Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by educationalattainment, Canada and jurisdictions, populationaged 16 and over, 2003 313

Table D.5.5Employment rate, by literacy level for documentproficiency, Canada and jurisdictions, populationaged 16 to 65, 2003 315

Table D.5.6Literacy levels for prose proficiency, Aboriginal (urban)and non-Aboriginal (urban and rural) populations aged16 and over in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 2003 317

Table D.5.7Literacy levels for prose proficiency, Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal populations aged 16 and over in Yukon,Northwest Territories and Nunavut, 2003 317

Chapter D tablesTable D.6.1Level of educational attainment in the populationaged 25 to 64, OECD countries, Canada andjurisdictions, 2004 319

Table D.6.2Distribution of the population aged 25 to 64 withAboriginal identity, by level of educationalattainment and age group, Canada and jurisdictions,1996 and 2001 320

Table D.6.3Level of educational attainment in the populationaged 25 to 64, off-reserve Aboriginal populationfrom Western Canada, 2004 323

Table D.6.4Distribution of the population aged 25 to 64,by level of educational attainment and age group,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 2001 323

Table D.6.5Level of educational attainment in the populationaged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by sex,Canada, 1996 and 2001 326

Table D.6.6Level of educational attainment in the populationaged 25 to 64, by sex, Canada,1996 and 2001 328

271

D1Chapter D tables


Table D.1.1

Number of registered apprentices, Canada and jurisdictions, 1994 and 2004

1994 2004

number

Canada 163,750 267,770

Newfoundland and Labrador1 2,045 10,180Prince Edward Island 385 715Nova Scotia 4,205 5,535New Brunswick 5,040 4,385Quebec 35,965 60,225Ontario 59,630 92,890Manitoba 3,010 6,340Saskatchewan 4,410 6,765Alberta 28,555 54,165British Columbia 19,770 25,720Yukon 190 325Northwest Territories2 545 395Nunavut2 … 130

1. Beginning in 1997, Newfoundland and Labrador expanded its definition of registered apprentices to include students in pre-apprenticeship programs incommunity colleges and similar institutions.

2. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for the Northwest Territories. This creates a breakin series for the Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.

Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped,the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.

Source: Registered Apprenticeship Information System, Statistics Canada.

Table D.1.2

Number of registered apprentices, by sex and major trade group, Canada, 1994 and 2004

1994 2004

Both Percentage Both PercentageMale Female sexes female Male Female sexes female

number percentage number percentage

Total, major trade groups 153,270 10,480 163,750 6 241,995 25,775 267,770 9

Building construction 35,785 895 36,680 2 58,965 1,645 60,610 3Electrical, electronics and related 29,685 510 30,195 2 44,315 1,110 45,425 2Food and service 6,475 7,390 13,865 53 9,935 16,300 26,235 62Industrial and related mechanical 13,070 165 13,235 1 19,535 355 19,890 2Metal fabricating 32,500 375 32,875 1 53,560 1,095 54,655 2Motor vehicle and heavy equipment 33,570 645 34,215 2 51,680 1,155 52,835 2Other1 2,185 500 2,685 19 4,005 4,115 8,120 51

1. Consists of miscellaneous trades and occupations not classified elsewhere.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped,

the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentagedistributions, which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.


Tables D1


272

D1


Table D.1.3

Number and percentage distribution of registered apprentices, by age group, Canada, 1994 and 2004

1994 2004

number percentage number percentage

Under 20 3,865 2 17,845 720 to 24 39,945 24 72,135 2725 to 29 43,810 27 61,880 2330 to 34 31,575 19 39,655 1535 to 39 17,920 11 28,035 1040 to 44 9,155 6 21,870 845 and over 7,615 5 23,615 9Not reported 9,865 6 2,735 1

Total 163,750 100 267,770 100

Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped,the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentagedistributions, which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.


Table D.1.4

Public college and institute full-time enrolment (headcount), by sex, Canada and jurisdictions,2003/2004 and 2004/2005

Male Female Both sexes

2003/2004 2004/2005 2003/2004 2004/2005 2003/2004 2004/2005

number number percentage number percentage number

Canada .. 1 .. 1 .. 1 .. .. 1 .. 511,483 514,266

Newfoundland and Labrador2 5,870 e 5,100 e 3,416 e 37 e 3,316 e 39 e 9,286 8,416Prince Edward Island2, 4 1,202 1,082 904 43 807 43 2,106 1,889Nova Scotia 4,293 4,407 4,435 51 4,603 51 8,728 9,010New Brunswick 2,596 2,812 2,120 45 2,302 45 4,716 5,114Quebec3 71,963 70,983 97,385 58 97,702 58 169,348 168,685Ontario 67,331 e 68,403 e 79,726 e 54 e 80,900 e 54 e 147,057 149,303Manitoba4,5 7,269 7,110 5,529 43 5,351 43 12,798 12,461Saskatchewan .. .. .. .. .. .. 9,176 e 9,281 e

Alberta4 39,413 39,433 29,426 43 30,773 44 68,839 70,206British Columbia4 39,015 39,095 38,686 50 39,008 50 77,701 78,103Yukon 270 e 253 e 406 e 60 e 470 e 65 e 676 723Northwest Territories 180 198 305 63 344 63 485 542Nunavut 130 240 437 77 293 55 567 533

1. These numbers are not available for Canada because the full-time counts for Saskatchewan are not available and cannot be estimated.2. Full-time/Part-time status was estimated for a small number of enrolments.3. Data are for the fall period.4. For a small number of enrolments, the sex is not known; therefore, the male/female split was estimated.5. The reporting period is July 1 to June 30. Enrolment figures may include small numbers of students in adult upgrading, English as a second language,

or other special training programs.Notes: Includes enrolment for publicly funded colleges and institutes only. Data are based on aggregate collection at the jurisdictional level. Except for

Quebec and Manitoba, the reporting period is September 1 to August 31.Sources: Survey of Colleges and Institutes, Statistics Canada.

Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Community College Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Trade/Vocational Enrolment Survey, Statistics Canada.

273

Chapter D tables D1


Table D.1.5

University enrolment, by sex and registration status, Canada and provinces, 1994/1995, 1999/2000 and 2004/2005

Male Female Both sexes1

1994/1995 1999/2000 2004/2005 1994/1995 1999/2000 2004/2005 1994/1995 1999/2000 2004/2005

number number numberFull-time students

Total2

Canada 270,069 262,647 327,729 305,643 330,075 429,165 575,712 592,722 756,894

Newfoundland and Labrador 5,871 5,580 5,784 7,272 7,902 9,039 13,143 13,482 14,823Prince Edward Island 1,038 963 1,236 1,503 1,650 2,151 2,541 2,613 3,387Nova Scotia 13,485 12,501 15,147 16,437 17,478 20,397 29,922 29,979 35,544New Brunswick 9,162 7,914 8,580 10,389 10,317 11,784 19,551 18,231 20,364Quebec 62,643 60,210 72,420 72,960 77,532 92,454 135,603 137,742 164,874Ontario 109,551 106,851 143,910 120,753 130,374 189,312 230,304 237,225 333,222Manitoba 11,043 9,231 12,258 11,919 11,634 16,764 22,962 20,865 29,022Saskatchewan 10,926 10,662 10,632 12,258 13,278 14,184 23,184 23,940 24,816Alberta 23,607 25,026 29,340 27,198 30,504 36,375 50,805 55,530 65,715British Columbia 22,737 23,709 28,425 24,957 29,409 36,705 47,694 53,118 65,130

Undergraduate

Canada 219,744 213,615 265,623 263,268 281,454 366,309 483,012 495,069 631,932

Newfoundland and Labrador 2,961 3,978 4,029 3,606 5,412 6,216 6,567 9,390 10,245Prince Edward Island 1,020 933 1,191 1,467 1,590 2,082 2,487 2,523 3,273Nova Scotia 11,706 10,728 13,095 14,694 15,492 18,333 26,400 26,220 31,428New Brunswick 8,277 7,170 7,623 9,648 9,408 10,782 17,925 16,578 18,405Quebec 48,615 45,249 52,431 61,059 62,589 72,798 109,674 107,838 125,229Ontario 91,971 89,409 122,253 107,274 114,579 168,480 199,245 203,988 290,733Manitoba 9,183 7,716 10,512 10,488 10,272 14,925 19,671 17,988 25,437Saskatchewan 9,138 8,739 8,949 10,854 11,568 12,621 19,992 20,307 21,570Alberta 19,821 21,138 23,412 23,940 26,802 30,552 43,761 47,940 53,964British Columbia 17,052 18,558 22,128 20,229 23,742 29,520 37,281 42,300 51,648

Graduate

Canada 41,739 41,079 53,409 32,961 39,162 52,179 74,700 80,241 105,588

Newfoundland and Labrador 522 534 663 411 540 732 933 1,074 1,395Prince Edward Island 12 18 27 15 36 48 27 54 75Nova Scotia 1,278 1,155 1,698 1,092 1,218 1,599 2,370 2,373 3,297New Brunswick 630 534 735 465 501 648 1,095 1,035 1,383Quebec 12,231 12,834 17,361 10,164 12,825 17,106 22,395 25,659 34,467Ontario 15,561 15,498 19,650 11,919 13,935 18,609 27,480 29,433 38,259Manitoba 1,545 1,221 1,371 1,092 1,047 1,365 2,637 2,268 2,736Saskatchewan 1,158 1,068 1,143 696 858 1,062 1,854 1,926 2,205Alberta 3,336 3,309 5,052 2,715 3,081 4,512 6,051 6,390 9,564British Columbia 5,460 4,905 5,706 4,392 5,127 6,498 9,852 10,032 12,204

Part-time students

Total2

Canada 110,301 101,202 101,280 172,959 153,477 156,081 283,260 254,679 257,361

Newfoundland and Labrador 1,638 1,119 1,323 2,388 1,656 1,839 4,026 2,775 3,162Prince Edward Island 225 162 204 363 324 381 588 486 585Nova Scotia 2,610 2,820 2,670 4,713 4,779 5,211 7,323 7,599 7,881New Brunswick 1,788 1,464 1,644 3,447 2,631 2,886 5,235 4,095 4,530Quebec 44,559 39,558 38,223 68,262 60,555 60,306 112,821 100,113 98,529Ontario 36,396 30,723 33,054 57,684 44,370 47,136 94,080 75,093 80,190Manitoba 5,358 3,840 3,876 7,449 5,988 6,384 12,807 9,828 10,260Saskatchewan 2,952 2,796 2,964 5,115 4,719 5,055 8,067 7,515 8,019Alberta 6,156 10,008 8,250 10,476 16,008 14,079 16,632 26,016 22,329British Columbia 8,622 8,712 9,072 13,065 12,447 12,801 21,687 21,159 21,873


274

D1


Table D.1.5

University enrolment, by sex and registration status, Canada and provinces, 1994/1995, 1999/2000 and 2004/2005 (concluded)

Male Female Both sexes1

1994/1995 1999/2000 2004/2005 1994/1995 1999/2000 2004/2005 1994/1995 1999/2000 2004/2005

number number numberUndergraduate

Canada 64,977 60,342 59,754 110,295 94,929 93,972 175,272 155,271 153,726

Newfoundland and Labrador 609 555 567 630 816 804 1,239 1,371 1,371Prince Edward Island 210 123 153 324 234 261 534 357 414Nova Scotia 1,188 1,506 1,371 2,196 2,307 2,574 3,384 3,813 3,945New Brunswick 615 921 918 1,461 1,566 1,380 2,076 2,487 2,298Quebec 26,877 23,373 22,332 46,590 38,775 38,991 73,467 62,148 61,323Ontario 21,189 18,858 20,106 36,942 28,104 28,188 58,131 46,962 48,294Manitoba 4,137 2,922 2,925 5,694 4,446 4,521 9,831 7,368 7,446Saskatchewan 1,320 1,371 1,719 2,562 2,544 3,120 3,882 3,915 4,839Alberta 2,229 3,579 2,322 4,137 5,949 3,909 6,366 9,528 6,231British Columbia 6,609 7,134 7,344 9,762 10,182 10,224 16,371 17,316 17,568

Graduate

Canada 17,880 16,575 19,050 20,367 19,491 24,075 38,247 36,066 43,125

Newfoundland and Labrador 225 267 396 258 318 462 483 585 858Prince Edward Island 3 6 27 .. 18 45 .. 24 72Nova Scotia 498 648 825 786 1,134 1,671 1,284 1,782 2,496New Brunswick 273 240 252 360 297 378 633 537 630Quebec 9,111 7,341 8,925 9,786 8,367 10,719 18,897 15,708 19,644Ontario 4,971 4,320 4,758 5,499 4,773 5,430 10,470 9,093 10,188Manitoba 483 357 354 651 591 561 1,134 948 915Saskatchewan 597 519 375 594 657 444 1,191 1,176 819Alberta 1,035 1,902 1,992 1,329 2,022 2,760 2,364 3,924 4,752British Columbia 687 975 1,152 1,104 1,317 1,608 1,791 2,292 2,760

1. Includes enrolments for which sex was not reported.2. Includes other program levels not listed in this table.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped,

the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.Source: Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.

Table D.1.6

Percentage of males relative to total full-time university enrolment, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005

Undergraduate Graduate Total

1994/1995 2004/2005 1994/1995 2004/2005 1994/1995 2004/2005

percentage percentage percentage

Canada 45 42 56 51 47 43

Newfoundland and Labrador 45 39 56 46 46 40Prince Edward Island 41 36 44 35 41 36Nova Scotia 44 42 54 51 45 43New Brunswick 46 41 58 53 47 42Quebec 44 42 55 50 46 44Ontario 46 42 57 51 47 43Manitoba 47 41 59 50 48 42Saskatchewan 46 41 62 52 47 42Alberta 45 43 55 53 46 45British Columbia 46 43 55 47 48 44

Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped,the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentagedistributions, which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.

Source: Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.

275

Chapter D tables D2


Tables D2

Table D.2.1

Number of registered apprenticeship completions, Canada and jurisdictions, 1994 and 2004

1994 2004 Percentage change

number percentage

Canada 16,800 19,705 17

Newfoundland and Labrador1 240 195 -19Prince Edward Island 50 85 70Nova Scotia 460 530 15New Brunswick 595 515 -13Quebec 1,395 3,410 144Ontario 5,815 5,870 1Manitoba 435 815 87Saskatchewan 385 780 103Alberta 4,445 5,475 23British Columbia 2,920 1,940 -34Yukon 20 30 50Northwest Territories2 45 45 0Nunavut2 … 10 …

1. Beginning in 1997, Newfoundland and Labrador expanded its definition of registered apprentices to include students in pre-apprenticeship programsin community colleges and similar institutions.

2. Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999. Prior to that date, data for Nunavut were included with data for Northwest Territories. This creates a break inseries for Northwest Territories in 1999/2000.

Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, thetotal value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.


Table D.2.2

Number of registered apprenticeship completions, by sex and trade group, Canada, 1994 and 2004

1994 2004 Percentage change

Percentage Both Percentage Both BothMale Female female sexes Male Female female sexes Male Female sexes

number percentage number percentage number percentage

Building construction trades 2,370 45 2 2,415 2,540 50 2 2,590 7 11 7Electrical, electronics and related 2,955 40 1 2,995 3,445 75 2 3,520 17 88 18Food and service trades 685 1,280 65 1,965 550 1,715 76 2,265 -20 34 15Industrial and relatedmechanical trades 1,670 15 1 1,685 2,035 20 1 2,055 22 33 22Metal fabricating trades 3,540 20 1 3,560 4,710 75 2 4,785 33 275 34Motor vehicle and heavy equipment 3,895 45 1 3,940 4,070 60 1 4,130 4 33 5Other trades1 200 50 20 250 165 190 54 355 -18 280 42

Total 15,315 1,490 9 16,800 17,520 2,185 11 19,705 14 47 17

1. Consists of miscellaneous trades and occupations not classified elsewhere.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the

total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentage distributions,which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.



276

D2


Table D.2.3

Number of diplomas and degrees granted and graduation rates, by level of education, Canada, 1976 to 2004

Number of diplomas and degrees Graduation rates

Bachelor’s Bachelor’sCollege and first Earned College and first Earned

diplomas and professional Master’s doctorate diplomas and professional Master’s doctoratecertificates degrees degrees degrees Total1 certificates degrees degrees degrees

number rate

1976 56,655 83,292 11,555 1,693 153,195 12.1 18.4 2.7 0.41977 60,687 87,356 12,375 1,702 162,120 13.0 18.6 2.8 0.41978 64,891 89,349 12,637 1,819 168,696 13.7 19.1 2.8 0.41979 67,883 87,238 12,351 1,803 169,275 14.1 18.3 2.7 0.41980 67,343 86,410 12,432 1,738 167,923 13.7 17.7 2.7 0.41981 68,744 84,926 12,903 1,816 168,389 13.7 17.2 2.7 0.41982 71,818 87,106 13,110 1,715 173,749 14.2 17.3 2.7 0.41983 75,776 89,770 13,925 1,821 181,292 15.2 17.7 2.8 0.41984 83,557 92,856 14,568 1,878 192,859 16.5 18.5 2.9 0.41985 84,281 97,551 15,208 2,004 199,044 16.9 19.2 3.0 0.41986 81,761 101,670 15,948 2,220 201,599 16.9 20.2 3.2 0.51987 82,419 103,078 15,968 2,375 203,840 18.5 21.2 3.1 0.51988 80,096 103,606 16,320 2,418 202,440 19.2 23.2 3.2 0.51989 82,190 104,981 16,750 2,573 206,494 20.1 24.7 3.4 0.51990 82,506 109,777 17,653 2,673 212,609 20.1 26.5 3.9 0.51991 83,824 114,820 18,033 2,947 219,624 20.1 27.8 4.2 0.61992 85,949 120,745 19,435 3,136 229,265 20.6 28.7 4.6 0.61993 92,515 123,202 20,818 3,356 239,891 23.2 29.4 5.0 0.71994 95,296 126,538 21,292 3,552 246,678 24.2 31.6 5.0 0.81995 97,195 127,331 21,356 3,716 249.598 24.8 32.3 5.1 0.91996 100,978 127,986 21,558 3,928 254,450 25.0 32.5 5.3 0.91997 105,019 125,794 21,319 3,966 256,098 25.8 31.0 5.3 0.91998 113,057 124,861 22,026 3,976 263,920 27.7 30.8 5.6 0.91999 .. 126,436 23,272 3,966 .. .. 31.0 5.7 1.02000 .. 128,568 24,228 3,860 .. .. 31.4 5.9 0.92001 .. 129,240 24,906 3,708 .. .. 31.0 6.0 0.92002 .. 134,037 26,325 3,729 .. .. 30.6 6.3 0.92003 .. 140,883 28,980 3,861 .. .. 32.1 6.7 0.92004 .. 148,212 31,554 4,164 .. .. 33.3 7.1 1.0

1. Excludes university diploma/certificate below or above bachelor’s degree.Notes: Rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the population at the typical age of graduation (age 21 for college diplomas, age 22 for

bachelor’s and first professional degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 for earned doctorates). Rates include foreign students. The data forBritish Columbia do not include bachelor’s degrees granted by university colleges. To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random roundingprocess is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the total value may not match the sum of the individual values,since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.

Sources: University Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Community College Student Information System, Statistics Canada.

277

Chapter D tables D2


Table D.2.4

Graduation rates, by program level and jurisdiction of study, Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2004

Typical ageLevel and year at graduation Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T.

rateCollege:

1991 21 20 9 27 7 9 40 16 10 10 19 11 7 101992 21 21 10 25 7 10 42 16 9 10 19 10 5 331993 21 23 12 22 10 10 46 19 10 10 19 11 6 251994 21 24 13 25 10 12 47 20 11 11 20 13 7 321995 21 25 15 34 15 13 44 23 9 11 22 13 14 191996 21 25 20 35 29 12 37 26 9 10 21 14 9 311997 21 26 20 40 32 23 37 27 10 10 20 13 6 121998 21 28 26 53 34 26 40 30 9 8 20 14 21 171999 21 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2000 21 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2001 21 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2002 21 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2003 21 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2004 21 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Bachelor’s and firstprofessional degrees:

1991 22 28 22 21 39 26 28 31 30 31 23 18 . .1992 22 29 21 24 42 26 28 32 30 32 23 20 . .1993 22 29 22 23 42 27 30 33 31 33 23 21 . .1994 22 32 24 25 45 28 32 36 33 29 26 22 . .1995 22 32 24 27 46 30 32 37 34 31 26 22 . .1996 22 33 25 24 46 33 32 38 32 31 27 21 . .1997 22 31 26 27 47 32 30 36 31 28 26 22 . .1998 22 31 28 22 49 31 28 36 30 28 25 23 . .1999 22 31 31 28 50 32 28 36 30 29 26 24 . .2000 22 31 30 28 49 34 28 36 29 31 26 26 . .2001 22 31 31 28 46 34 27 35 30 31 26 25 . .2002 22 31 30 27 46 35 27 35 29 31 28 24 . .2003 22 32 32 30 51 35 28 37 31 31 28 24 . .2004 22 33 33 31 54 39 31 38 32 30 29 24 . .

Master’s degrees:

1991 24 4 2 0 6 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 . .1992 24 5 2 1 8 3 6 5 3 3 3 3 . .1993 24 5 3 1 8 4 6 5 3 3 4 4 . .1994 24 5 2 1 8 3 7 5 3 3 4 4 . .1995 24 5 3 0 8 4 7 5 4 4 4 4 . .1996 24 5 3 1 7 4 7 6 4 4 3 4 . .1997 24 5 3 0 8 4 7 6 4 4 4 4 . .1998 24 6 4 0 7 4 7 6 3 4 4 4 . .1999 24 6 5 1 10 4 7 6 3 4 4 5 . .2000 24 6 6 1 9 4 8 6 3 4 4 5 . .2001 24 6 5 1 10 4 8 6 3 4 5 5 . .2002 24 6 6 2 11 4 8 7 4 4 5 5 . .2003 24 7 6 1 12 4 9 7 3 5 5 5 . .2004 24 7 7 2 14 5 9 7 3 5 6 5 . .


278

D2


Table D.2.4

Graduation rates, by program level and jurisdiction of study, Canada and jurisdictions, 1991 to 2004 (concluded)

Typical ageLevel and year at graduation Can. N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T.

rateEarned doctorate degrees:

1991 27 0.6 0.3 … 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 . .1992 27 0.6 0.2 … 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 . .1993 27 0.7 0.3 … 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 . .1994 27 0.8 0.3 … 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.7 . .1995 27 0.9 0.3 … 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 . .1996 27 0.9 0.4 … 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 . .1997 27 0.9 0.4 … 0.6 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 . .1998 27 0.9 0.4 … 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 . .1999 27 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 . .2000 27 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 . .2001 27 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 . .2002 27 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 . .2003 27 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 . .2004 27 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 . .

Note: Graduation rates are based on jurisdiction of study. Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the population at thetypical age of graduation (age 21 for college diplomas, age 22 for undergraduate degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 for earneddoctorates). Rates presented in this table include foreign students. The data for British Columbia do not include bachelor’s degrees granted byuniversity colleges.

Sources: University Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Community College Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.

279

Chapter D tables D2


Table D.2.5

Number of graduates from public colleges and institutes, by sex and type of credential, Canada and jurisdictions,2003/2004 and 2004/2005

2003/2004 2004/2005

Percentage Both Percentage BothMale Female female sexes Male Female female sexes

number percentage number number percentage numberCanada

Certificate . . … 55,544 . . … 57,126Diploma . . … 110,278 . . … 111,590Degree . . … 4,068 4 . . … 4,433 4

Total . . … 169,890 . . … 173,149


Certificate 33 167 84 200 157 330 68 487Diploma 923 958 51 1,881 895 810 48 1,705Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 956 1,125 54 2,081 1,052 1,140 52 2,192

Prince Edward Island3

Certificate 209 98 32 307 234 114 33 348Diploma 346 319 48 665 389 316 45 705Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 555 417 43 972 623 430 41 1,053

Nova Scotia

Certificate 823 999 55 1,822 809 928 53 1,737Diploma 965 706 42 1,671 896 758 46 1,654Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 1,788 1,705 49 3,493 1,705 1,686 50 3,391

New Brunswick

Certificate 564 e 426 e 43 990 e 618 e 467 e 43 1,085 e

Diploma 521 e 392 e 43 913 e 571 e 430 e 43 1,001 e

Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 1,085 e 818 e 43 1,903 e 1,189 e 897 e 43 2,086 e

Quebec1

Certificate 4,127 4,953 55 9,080 4,155 5,108 55 9,263Diploma 15,966 25,547 62 41,513 15,387 25,503 62 40,890Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 20,093 30,500 60 50,593 19,542 30,611 61 50,153

Ontario3

Certificate 4,841 9,681 67 14,522 5,422 10,051 65 15,473Diploma 17,788 24,451 58 42,239 19,226 24,715 56 43,941Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 22,629 34,132 60 56,761 24,648 34,766 59 59,414

Manitoba2,3

Certificate . . … 2,506 . . … 2,486Diploma . . … 1,604 . . … 1,770Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 1,873 2,325 57 4,110 1,899 2,357 55 4,256


280

D2


Table D.2.5

Number of graduates from public colleges and institutes, by sex and type of credential, Canada and jurisdictions,2003/2004 and 2004/2005 (concluded)

2003/2004 2004/2005

Percentage Both Percentage BothMale Female female sexes Male Female female sexes

number percentage number number percentage numberSaskatchewan

Certificate . . … 3,042 . . … 3,427Diploma . . … 866 . . … 893Degree … … … … … … … …

Total . . … 3,908 . . … 4,320

Alberta3

Certificate 2,202 4,848 69 7,050 2,694 4,818 64 7,512Diploma 4,107 4,520 52 8,627 4,244 4,905 54 9,149Degree 429 506 54 935 431 440 51 871

Total 6,738 9,874 59 16,612 7,369 10,163 58 17,532

British Columbia3

Certificate 7,497 8,186 52 15,683 7,470 7,585 50 15,055Diploma 4,648 5,495 54 10,143 4,602 5,179 53 9,781Degree 1,088 2,035 65 3,123 1,178 2,361 67 3,539

Total 13,233 15,716 54 28,949 13,250 15,125 53 28,375

Yukon

Certificate 54 e 83 e 61 137 48 e 90 e 65 138Diploma 26 e 26 e 50 52 15 e 24 e 62 39Degree … … … … … … … …

Total 80 e 109 e 58 189 63 e 114 e 64 177



Total 37 86 70 123 23 72 76 95

Nunavut


Total 44 142 76 186 26 56 68 82

1. Data are for the 2004 and 2005 calendar years.2. The reporting period is July 1 to June 30.3. For a small number of graduates, the sex is not known; therefore, the male/female split was estimated.4. Canada total is higher than the sum of jurisdictional totals as counts for Ontario, Yukon and Northwest Territories consist of small counts which have

been suppressed for confidentiality reasons.Note: Data based on aggregate collection at the jurisdictional level. Except for Quebec and Manitoba, the reporting period is September 1 to August 31.Sources: Survey of Colleges and Institutes, Statistics Canada.

Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Community College Student Information System, Statistics Canada.Trade/Vocational Enrolment Survey, Statistics Canada.

281

Chapter D tables D2


Table D.2.6

University graduation rates, by level of degree, sex and field of study, Canada, 1994 and 2004

Bachelor’s and first Earnedprofessional degrees Master’s degrees doctorate degrees

Percentage Percentage Percentage1994 2004 change 1994 2004 change 1994 2004 change

rate rate rate

Total males 26.2 25.3 -0.9 5.1 6.7 1.6 1.1 1.1 0.0

Education 2.2 1.9 -0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Visual and performing arts, and communicationstechnologies 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Humanities 3.0 2.5 -0.5 0.5 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Social and behavioural sciences, and law 6.2 4.9 -1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Physical and life sciences, and technologies 2.4 2.0 -0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0Mathematics, computer and information sciences 1.6 2.6 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0Architecture, engineering and related technologies 3.5 3.9 0.4 0.9 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.1Business, management and public administration 4.2 4.5 0.3 1.4 2.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0Health, parks, recreation and fitness 1.9 1.7 -0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total females 37.1 41.8 4.7 5.0 7.5 2.5 0.5 0.9 0.4

Education 6.6 6.6 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0Visual and performing arts, and communicationstechnologies 1.4 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Humanities 5.6 5.1 -0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Social and behavioural sciences, and law 10.2 10.4 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1Physical and life sciences, and technologies 2.6 3.3 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1Mathematics, computer and information sciences 3.0 2.7 -0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Architecture, engineering and related technologies 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Business, management and public administration 4.8 6.2 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Health, parks, recreation and fitness 3.8 5.3 1.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1Other 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total, both sexes 31.6 33.3 1.8 5.0 7.1 2.1 0.8 1.0 0.2

Education 4.3 4.2 -0.1 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Visual and performing arts, and communicationstechnologies 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Humanities 4.3 3.8 -0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Social and behavioural sciences, and law 8.2 7.6 -0.6 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1Physical and life sciences, and technologies 2.5 2.6 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1Mathematics, computer and information sciences 1.5 1.3 -0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Architecture, engineering and related technologies 2.2 2.6 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Business, management and public administration 4.5 5.3 0.8 1.2 2.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0Health, parks, recreation and fitness 2.9 3.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Other 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note: Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the population at the typical age of graduation (age 22 for bachelor’s andfirst professional degrees, age 24 for master’s degrees, and age 27 for earned doctorates). Rates presented in this table include foreign students.

Source: Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.


282

D2


Table D.2.7

Number of university degrees/diplomas/certificates granted, by sex and field of study,Canada and provinces,1 1994


number

Total males 76,473 1,224 237 3,549 1,710 23,499 29,064 2,853 2,394 5,487 6,456

Education 7,146 267 12 324 234 2,301 1,995 357 324 747 585Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 1,779 21 3 117 12 600 669 54 36 111 156Humanities 8,379 153 54 414 222 1,968 3,627 252 237 462 990Social and behavioural sciences, and law 15,354 204 27 615 255 3,405 7,284 699 402 936 1,527Physical and life sciences, and technologies 6,696 147 24 396 129 1,602 2,616 306 150 609 717Mathematics, computer andinformation sciences 4,554 57 3 177 102 1,344 1,869 225 174 276 327Architecture, engineering and relatedtechnologies 10,407 120 18 510 264 3,393 4,062 276 258 822 684Agriculture, natural resources andconservation 1,578 0 0 69 54 426 510 156 114 111 138Business, management andpublic administration 15,219 177 72 702 333 6,741 4,641 333 471 849 900Health, parks, recreation and fitness 5,166 78 24 225 105 1,605 1,755 189 228 537 420Other 195 0 0 0 0 114 36 6 0 27 12

Total females 101,601 1,497 327 4,557 2,301 34,356 37,122 3,438 3,015 6,798 8,190

Education 19,164 492 39 735 573 7,179 5,133 900 840 1,752 1,521Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 3,531 21 6 126 48 1,191 1,383 132 60 231 333Humanities 14,679 261 63 663 345 3,606 6,621 345 285 798 1,692Social and behavioural sciences, and law 24,072 246 84 1,053 501 5,589 11,724 912 597 1,347 2,019Physical and life sciences, and technologies 6,426 129 33 384 147 1,923 2,454 216 111 423 606Mathematics, computer andinformation sciences 2,274 21 9 99 39 738 963 75 54 123 153Architecture, engineering and relatedtechnologies 2,586 21 6 198 54 1,038 903 45 42 138 141Agriculture, natural resources andconservation 1,035 0 0 72 9 291 399 87 45 69 63Business, management andpublic administration 16,407 189 57 660 375 8,259 4,269 345 612 795 846Health, parks, recreation and fitness 11,028 117 30 567 207 4,227 3,243 375 369 1,083 810Other 399 0 0 0 3 315 30 6 0 39 6

Total, both sexes2 178,074 2,721 564 8,106 4,011 57,855 66,186 6,291 5,409 12,285 14,646

Education 26,310 759 51 1,059 807 9,480 7,128 1,257 1,164 2,499 2,106Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 5,310 42 9 243 60 1,791 2,052 186 96 342 489Humanities 23,058 414 117 1,077 567 5,574 10,248 597 522 1,260 2,682Social and behavioural sciences, and law 39,426 450 111 1,668 756 8,994 19,008 1,611 999 2,283 3,546Physical and life sciences, and technologies 13,122 276 57 780 276 3,525 5,070 522 261 1,032 1,323Mathematics, computer andinformation sciences 6,828 78 12 276 141 2,082 2,832 300 228 399 480Architecture, engineering and relatedtechnologies 12,993 141 24 708 318 4,431 4,965 321 300 960 825Agriculture, natural resources andconservation 2,613 0 0 141 63 717 909 243 159 180 201Business, management andpublic administration 31,626 366 129 1,362 708 15,000 8,910 678 1,083 1,644 1,746Health, parks, recreation and fitness 16,194 195 54 792 312 5,832 4,998 564 597 1,620 1,230Other 594 0 0 0 3 429 66 12 0 66 18

1. Graduates shown by province of study.2. Includes individuals for whom sex was not reported.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the

total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.Source: Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.

283

Chapter D tables D2


Table D.2.8

Number of university degrees/diplomas/certificates granted, by sex and field of study,Canada and provinces1, 2004


number

Total males 84,195 1,170 222 3,792 1,944 24,825 32,565 2,415 2,301 7,251 7,710

Education 6,117 198 24 246 186 1,338 2,370 231 222 654 648Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 2,460 24 0 108 36 876 897 81 54 174 210Humanities 7,821 105 33 321 231 1,674 3,384 297 162 576 1,038Social and behavioural sciences, and law 13,821 141 36 525 282 3,384 5,994 441 351 978 1,689Physical and life sciences, and technologies 6,438 135 30 309 144 1,347 2,598 243 144 711 777Mathematics, computer andinformation sciences 7,749 60 15 279 180 1,839 3,564 150 198 636 828Architecture, engineering and relatedtechnologies 13,077 201 21 591 237 4,089 5,325 273 342 1,182 816Agriculture, natural resources andconservation 1,707 18 0 129 57 366 546 114 162 147 168Business, management andpublic administration 19,476 180 45 993 438 8,343 5,997 360 471 1,545 1,104Health, parks, recreation and fitness 4,944 108 18 270 138 1,170 1,800 201 189 627 423Other 585 0 0 21 15 399 90 24 6 21 9

Total females 124,824 1,989 453 5,769 3,000 36,387 47,856 3,897 3,528 10,749 11,196

Education 19,293 471 72 783 504 4,914 7,332 693 717 1,926 1,881Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 4,860 48 3 216 63 1,596 1,959 120 87 357 411Humanities 14,520 234 45 663 390 2,913 6,582 507 300 1,101 1,785Social and behavioural sciences, and law 27,939 336 99 1,143 594 7,281 12,177 834 633 1,869 2,973Physical and life sciences, and technologies 8,742 159 66 453 186 1,668 3,894 324 174 834 984Mathematics, computer andinformation sciences 3,324 30 0 156 42 729 1,665 57 60 243 342Architecture, engineering and relatedtechnologies 4,374 81 9 168 60 1,293 1,923 135 114 336 255Agriculture, natural resources andconservation 1,860 12 0 189 24 456 660 87 120 159 153Business, management andpublic administration 23,688 255 60 1,128 552 10,845 6,585 447 810 1,713 1,293Health, parks, recreation and fitness 15,195 360 99 840 558 3,891 5,016 654 504 2,175 1,098Other 1,029 3 0 30 27 801 63 39 9 36 21

Total, both sexes2 209,019 3,159 675 9,561 4,944 61,212 80,421 6,312 5,829 18,000 18,906

Education 25,410 669 96 1,029 690 6,252 9,702 924 939 2,580 2,529Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 7,320 72 3 324 99 2,472 2,856 201 141 531 621Humanities 22,341 339 78 984 621 4,587 9,966 804 462 1,677 2,823Social and behavioural sciences, and law 41,760 477 135 1,668 876 10,665 18,171 1,275 984 2,847 4,662Physical and life sciences, and technologies 15,180 294 96 762 330 3,015 6,492 567 318 1,545 1,761Mathematics, computer andinformation sciences 11,073 90 15 435 222 2,568 5,229 207 258 879 1,170Architecture, engineering and relatedtechnologies 17,451 282 30 759 297 5,382 7,248 408 456 1,518 1,071Agriculture, natural resources andconservation 3,567 30 0 318 81 822 1,206 201 282 306 321Business, management andpublic administration 43,164 435 105 2,121 990 19,188 12,582 807 1,281 3,258 2,397Health, parks, recreation and fitness 20,139 468 117 1,110 696 5,061 6,816 855 693 2,802 1,521Other 1,614 3 0 51 42 1,200 153 63 15 57 30

1. Graduates shown by province of study.2. Includes individuals for whom sex was not reported.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the

total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.Source: Postsecondary Student Information System, Statistics Canada.

285

D3Chapter D tables


Table D.3.1

Number of full-time educators in universities, by rank and sex, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005


1994/1995 2004/2005 1994/1995 1994/1995 2004/2005 2004/2005 1994/1995 2004/2005

number number percentage number percentage numberAll teaching faculty

Canada 28,122 26,283 8,277 23 12,291 32 36,402 38,574

Newfoundland and Labrador 714 585 231 25 267 31 942 849Prince Edward Island 147 135 51 26 75 36 195 210Nova Scotia 1,458 1,380 543 27 786 36 1,998 2,166New Brunswick 897 798 282 24 414 34 1,182 1,212Quebec 7,095 6,387 1,923 21 2,580 29 9,021 8,970Ontario 10,311 9,573 3,144 23 4,725 33 13,455 14,298Manitoba 1,377 1,146 378 22 522 31 1,758 1,671Saskatchewan 1,146 1,041 276 19 471 31 1,422 1,512Alberta 2,409 2,544 669 22 1,185 32 3,081 3,729British Columbia 2,565 2,691 783 23 1,260 32 3,348 3,954

Full professors

Canada 13,272 11,376 1,584 11 2,646 19 14,856 14,025

Newfoundland and Labrador 279 258 30 10 45 15 309 303Prince Edward Island 54 39 0 0 12 24 54 51Nova Scotia 600 591 72 11 120 17 672 711New Brunswick 477 360 75 14 102 22 552 462Quebec 3,294 3,042 426 11 777 20 3,723 3,819Ontario 4,779 3,753 594 11 885 19 5,373 4,641Manitoba 651 495 57 8 99 17 708 594Saskatchewan 627 474 36 5 99 17 663 576Alberta 1,302 1,206 159 11 273 18 1,461 1,482British Columbia 1,206 1,155 132 10 234 17 1,338 1,392

Associate professors

Canada 9,666 7,917 3,102 24 4,224 35 12,771 12,144

Newfoundland and Labrador 309 207 105 25 111 35 414 318Prince Edward Island 48 63 18 27 27 29 66 93Nova Scotia 540 444 189 26 273 38 732 714New Brunswick 258 237 96 27 120 34 354 354Quebec 2,625 2,001 837 24 924 32 3,459 2,922Ontario 3,555 2,928 1,098 24 1,617 36 4,653 4,545Manitoba 444 306 153 26 177 36 600 486Saskatchewan 321 309 117 27 168 35 438 474Alberta 777 759 270 26 417 35 1,044 1,176British Columbia 783 666 228 23 387 37 1,011 1,053

Tables D3


286

D3


Other ranks

Canada 5,187 6,990 3,591 41 5,415 44 8,775 12,405

Newfoundland and Labrador 123 120 96 44 108 47 219 231Prince Edward Island 42 30 33 44 39 59 75 66Nova Scotia 315 342 282 47 393 53 597 735New Brunswick 162 204 114 42 192 48 273 396Quebec 1,179 1,341 660 36 882 40 1,836 2,229Ontario 1,980 2,895 1,452 42 2,220 43 3,429 5,115Manitoba 282 345 171 38 246 41 450 594Saskatchewan 198 258 123 38 201 44 324 459Alberta 333 579 240 42 495 46 573 1,074British Columbia 579 870 423 42 639 42 1,002 1,512

Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, thetotal value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentage distributions,which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.

Source: University and College Academic Staff Survey, Statistics Canada.

Table D.3.1

Number of full-time educators in universities, by rank and sex, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005 (concluded)


1994/1995 2004/2005 1994/1995 1994/1995 2004/2005 2004/2005 1994/1995 2004/2005

number number percentage number percentage number

287

Chapter D tables D3


Table D.3.2

Age distribution and median age of full-time university educators, by sex, Canada and provinces, 2004/2005


number of educators

Male

All ages1 26,283 585 135 1,377 801 6,387 9,576 1,146 1,041 2,544 2,69120 to 29 204 3 0 9 0 57 78 9 9 18 2430 to 39 4,623 69 15 219 126 1,050 1,872 177 171 420 50140 to 49 7,806 150 54 372 279 1,881 2,781 303 324 837 81950 to 59 8,760 231 48 483 270 2,214 3,105 354 336 858 85860 and over 4,878 135 18 294 120 1,185 1,728 303 201 408 489

Female

All ages1 12,288 267 75 786 414 2,583 4,725 525 471 1,188 1,26020 to 29 141 0 0 9 9 30 60 6 3 6 930 to 39 2,730 54 15 162 93 549 1,125 108 111 240 26740 to 49 4,359 93 33 291 135 942 1,641 189 162 408 46250 to 59 3,900 84 21 252 138 828 1,428 171 150 417 40860 and over 1,149 33 3 69 33 237 462 54 42 111 111

Both sexes

All ages1 38,574 852 210 2,166 1,212 8,970 14,298 1,671 1,512 3,732 3,95420 to 29 345 3 0 18 12 87 135 15 12 24 3630 to 39 7,353 120 33 381 222 1,596 2,997 285 285 660 76840 to 49 12,162 243 93 663 417 2,823 4,422 489 489 1,245 1,28150 to 59 12,657 318 66 738 411 3,042 4,533 525 486 1,278 1,26660 and over 6,027 168 18 363 153 1,419 2,187 354 240 522 597

percentage distribution2

Male

20 to 29 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.930 to 39 17.6 11.7 11.1 15.9 15.8 16.4 19.6 15.4 16.4 16.5 18.640 to 49 29.7 25.5 40.0 27.0 35.1 29.5 29.1 26.4 31.1 32.9 30.450 to 59 33.3 39.3 35.6 35.1 34.0 34.7 32.5 30.9 32.3 33.8 31.960 and over 18.6 23.0 13.3 21.4 15.1 18.6 18.1 26.4 19.3 16.1 18.2

Female


Both sexes


median age of educators3

Male 50 53 49 51 49 50 50 52 50 49 49Female 47 48 45 48 47 47 47 47 47 48 47Both sexes 49 52 47 50 49 49 49 50 49 49 49

1. Includes a small number of cases for which age is not reported.2. Percentage distribution is based on educators for whom age is reported.3. Median age of educators is based on individual records for which age is reported.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the

total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentage distributions,which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.

Source: University and College Academic Staff Survey, Statistics Canada.


288

D3


Table D.3.3

Age distribution1 of full-time university educators and of full-time employed labour force,Canada and provinces, 2004/2005

Age group Full-time university educators2 Full-time employed labour force3

percentage percentageCanada


Total 100 100



Total 100 100



Total 100 100

Nova Scotia


Total 100 100

New Brunswick


Total 100 100

Quebec


Total 100 100

Ontario


Total 100 100

289

Chapter D tables D3


Table D.3.3

Age distribution1 of full-time university educators and of full-time employed labour force,Canada and provinces, 2004/2005 (concluded)

Age group Full-time university educators2 Full-time employed labour force3

percentage percentageManitoba


Total 100 100

Saskatchewan


Total 100 100

Alberta


Total 100 100

British Columbia


Total 100 100

1. Percentage distributions may not add up to 100% due to rounding.2. According to the age distributions on October 1st (or as close as possible thereafter) in the school year of full-time university educators based on data

from University and College Academic Staff Survey. Unknown ages excluded.3. Based on a monthly average from September to August, Labour Force Survey.Sources: University and College Academic Staff Survey, Statistics Canada.

Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.


290

D3


Table D.3.4

Number and salary of full-time educators in universities1, by rank and sex, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005

Newfoundland PrinceCanada and Labrador Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick

1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005

in 2001 constant dollarsAll teaching faculty

Male No. 27,699 25,905 702 573 144 135 1,434 1,356 888 792Female No. 8,022 12,006 216 255 48 75 525 771 270 405Both sexes No. 35,718 37,908 918 828 195 210 1,959 2,130 1,158 1,197Females % 22 32 24 31 25 36 27 36 23 34

Average salary2

Male $ 86,780 90,628 71,614 82,660 72,341 79,758 74,965 82,164 78,136 80,757Female $ 72,673 79,124 62,592 72,151 58,743 72,330 62,777 70,435 67,210 71,337Both sexes $ 83,611 86,985 69,481 79,419 68,907 77,105 71,711 77,914 75,579 77,570Gender gap3 % 84 87 87 87 81 91 84 86 86 88

Full professors

Male No. 13,101 11,238 273 255 54 39 597 582 471 357Female No. 1,545 2,613 30 42 0 12 69 117 72 102Both sexes No. 14,649 13,848 303 297 54 51 669 699 546 459Females % 11 19 10 14 0 24 10 17 13 22

Average salary2

Male $ 100,420 107,626 84,688 95,223 85,248 92,984 87,487 98,177 89,430 96,629Female $ 94,103 101,925 82,504 91,307 … 95,752 81,388 94,419 83,297 93,196Both sexes $ 99,754 106,551 84,472 94,669 85,055 93,527 86,848 97,544 88,608 95,866Gender gap3 % 94 95 97 96 … 103 93 96 93 96



Average salary2


Other ranks


Average salary2


291

Chapter D tables D3


Table D.3.4

Number and salary of full-time educators in universities1, by rank and sex, Canada and provinces,1994/1995 and 2004/2005 (concluded)

Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan2 Alberta British Columbia

1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/ 1994/ 2004/1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005

in 2001 constant dollarsAll teaching faculty

Males No. 7,095 6,336 10,086 9,402 1,365 1,137 1,098 999 2,358 2,514 2,529 2,664Females No. 1,923 2,562 3,018 4,605 369 507 252 441 630 1,149 771 1,239Both sexes No. 9,021 8,898 13,101 14,004 1,731 1,641 1,350 1,440 2,988 3,660 3,300 3,903Females % 21 29 23 33 21 31 19 31 21 31 23 32

Average salary2

Males $ 84,976 87,100 90,452 92,176 85,258 86,411 90,496 96,000 85,599 97,926 92,276 95,973Females $ 74,126 78,585 75,104 80,807 68,292 73,227 72,559 81,713 70,483 82,978 75,810 81,706Both sexes $ 82,661 84,646 86,916 88,438 81,651 82,356 87,150 91,622 82,412 93,242 88,429 91,446Gender gap3 % 87 90 83 88 80 85 80 85 82 85 82 85

Full professors

Males No. 3,294 3,012 4,692 3,699 648 492 600 456 1,281 1,194 1,194 1,146Females No. 426 774 573 870 51 96 36 93 153 270 129 234Both sexes No. 3,723 3,786 5,265 4,566 699 588 636 552 1,431 1,467 1,320 1,380Females % 11 20 11 19 7 16 6 17 11 18 10 17

Average salary2



Males No. 2,625 1,989 3,492 2,865 438 303 306 294 762 747 777 660Females No. 837 915 1,068 1,581 147 174 108 165 258 402 225 384Both sexes No. 3,459 2,901 4,557 4,443 588 474 414 459 1,020 1,149 1,002 1,044Females % 24 32 23 36 25 37 26 36 25 35 22 37

Average salary2


Other ranks

Males No. 1,179 1,335 1,902 2,835 279 345 192 249 318 573 555 855Females No. 660 876 1,380 2,157 165 237 108 183 219 471 417 621Both sexes No. 1,836 2,211 3,279 4,992 441 579 303 432 537 1,047 975 1,479Females % 36 40 42 43 37 41 36 42 41 45 43 42

Average salary2


1. Excludes: staff who have been on unpaid leave; all religious and military personnel or similar staff paid according to salary scales lower than thoseapplying to lay staff; staff having a salary of zero or not reported.

2. Data on average salaries for Saskatchewan does not include the University of Saskatchewan.3. Gender gap is defined as the average salary of females as a percentage of the average salary of males.Notes: To ensure the confidentiality of responses, a random rounding process is applied to the data. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the

total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals are independently rounded.Source: University and College Academic Staff Survey, Statistics Canada.

293

Chapter D tables D4


Table D.4.1

Total domestic expenditures on R&D as a percentage of GDP, Canada in relation to all OECD countries, 2004(or latest available year)

Domestic R&D Domestic R&DOECD countries expenditures/GDP OECD countries expenditures/GDP


Sweden (2003)4 3.95 Netherlands 1.78 p

Finland 3.51 United Kingdom (2003) 1.88Japan 3.13 European Union (2003) 1.81Iceland (2003) 2.92 Norway 1.61United States1 2.68 p Australia (2002) 1.64Switzerland 2.94 Czech Republic 1.27Republic of Korea2 2.85 New Zealand (2003) 1.14Germany 2.49 Ireland 1.20 p

Denmark 2.48 p Italy (2003) 1.11Spain 1.07

Total OECD 2.26 p Hungary3 0.89Portugal 0.78

France 2.16 p Turkey (2003) 0.66Belgium 1.90 p Greece (2003) 0.62Austria 2.24 Poland 0.58

Slovak Republic 0.53Canada 2.01 p Mexico (2003) 0.43

1. Excludes most or all capital expenditures.2. Excludes R&D in the social sciences and humanities.3. Defence excluded (all or mostly).4. Underestimated.Sources: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2006 No. 1, June 2006, Table 02. Statistics Canada.

Estimates of Canadian Research and Development Expenditures (GERD), Canada, 1995 to 2006, and by Province 1995 to 2004. Catalogue No.88E0006XIE2006009.

Tables D4


294

D4


Table D.4.2

Total domestic expenditures on R&D as a percentage of GDP, Canada and jurisdictions, G-7, and leadingOECD countries, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004

1991 1995 2000 2002 2003 2004

percentage of GDP

Canada 1.6 1.7 1.9 r 2.0 r 2.0 2.0

percentage of provincial/territorial GDP

Newfoundland and Labrador 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9Prince Edward Island 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.0Nova Scotia 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 r 1.4 1.5New Brunswick 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 r 1.0 1.0Quebec1 1.8 2.1 2.5 r 2.8 r 2.7 2.7Ontario1 1.6 1.9 2.2 r 2.2 r 2.2 2.3Manitoba 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 r 1.2 1.3Saskatchewan 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 r 1.1 1.1Alberta 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1British Columbia 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 r 1.4 1.5Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

1991 1995 2000 2002 2003 2004

percentage of GDP

G-7

Canada 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0

France3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 p

Germany 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5Italy6 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 r 1.1 r 1.1Japan4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.1United Kingdom6 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9United States5 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 p 2.7 p

Leading OECD countries

Finland 2.1 2.4 3.4 3.4 r 3.5 3.5Iceland6 1.2 1.5 2.7 r 3.1 r 2.9 r 2.9Sweden6 2.9 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.0

Total OECD .. .. 2.2 2.2 2.3 p 2.3 p

1. Quebec and Ontario figures exclude federal government expenditures contributed in the National Capital Region. Canada includes federal governmentexpenditures contributed in the National Capital Region.

2. Data not available by individual territory.3. Data for 2000 represent break in series with previous year for which data are available.4. Data for 1991 and 1995 exclude most or all capital expenditure.5. Data exclude most or all capital expenditures.6. Data for 2003.Sources: Statistics Canada. Total spending on research and development in Canada, 1990 to 2006, and provinces, 1990 to 2004. Catalogue No. 88-0001XIE

Vol. 30 no.7. OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2006 No. 1, June 2006, Table 02, for G-7 and OECD countries for 2000.Statistics Canada. Estimates of Canadian Research and Development Expenditure (GERD), Canada, 1995 to 2006, and by Province 1995 to 2004.Catalogue No. 88E0006XIE2006009 (for GERD for Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut).CANSIM II, Table 384-0002 (Territorial GDP).

295

Chapter D tables D4


Table D.4.3

Percentage of total R&D by sector, Canada and jurisdictions, G-7, leading OECD countries, 2004

Business Private AllGovernment Federal Provincial enterprise University1 non-profit sectors

percentage

Canada 9.3 8.0 1.3 55.5 34.8 0.4 100.0

Newfoundland and Labrador 16.6 13.6 3.0 15.4 68.0 0.0 100.0Prince Edward Island 25.0 25.0 0.0 15.0 60.0 0.0 100.0Nova Scotia 19.5 18.2 1.3 19.9 59.9 0.7 100.0New Brunswick 13.5 11.7 1.8 33.8 51.4 1.3 100.0Quebec2 5.6 4.5 1.1 60.2 34.2 0.0 100.0Ontario2 3.6 2.8 0.8 63.6 32.7 0.1 100.0Manitoba 14.8 14.0 0.8 31.8 50.3 3.1 100.0Saskatchewan 15.9 12.8 3.1 26.3 57.8 0.0 100.0Alberta 10.9 5.4 5.5 43.4 43.8 1.9 100.0British Columbia 4.6 4.0 0.6 57.3 36.4 1.7 100.0Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut3 66.7 66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

G-7

Canada 9.3 8.0 1.3 55.5 34.8 0.4 100.0

France 16.7 p .. .. 62.9 p 19.1 p 1.3 p 100.0Germany4 13.2 .. .. 70.4 16.3 .. 100.0Italy4, 6 and 7 17.5 .. .. 47.3 33.9 1.4 100.0Japan 9.5 .. .. 75.2 13.4 1.9 100.0United Kingdom7 9.7 .. .. 65.7 21.4 3.2 100.0United States5 12.2 p .. .. 70.1 p 13.6 p 4.1 p 100.0

Leading OECD countries

Finland 9.5 .. .. 70.1 19.8 0.6 100.0Iceland7 24.8 .. .. 51.8 21.3 2.1 100.0Sweden4, 6 and 7 3.5 .. .. 74.1 22.0 0.4 100.0

Total OECD 12.5 p .. .. 67.9 p 17.1 p 2.5 p 100.0

1. OECD guidelines request that R&D in the entire postsecondary sector be reported; however, data for Canada are limited to R&D activities in universitiesand affiliated institutions as data on R&D in colleges and similar institutions are not being collected as part of the current data program at StatisticsCanada.

2. Quebec and Ontario figures exclude federal government expenditures allocated in the National Capital Region. Canada includes federal governmentexpenditures contributed in the National Capital Region.

3. Data not available by individual territory.4. Government category includes private non-profit.5. Government category includes federal or central government only. Business enterpise, postsecondary and private non-profit categories exclude most or

all capital expenditures.6. Data for Italy and Sweden are for 2003. Government, postsecondary, and private non-profit categories, exclude most or all capital expenditures.7. Data for 2003.Sources: Statistics Canada. Estimates of Canadian Research and Development Expenditures (GERD), Canada, 1995 to 2006, and by Province 1995 to 2004.

Catalogue No. 88E0006XIE2006009.OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2006 No. 1, June 2006, Tables 17-20.


296

D4


Table D.4.4

Expenditures on R&D, and percentage change, Canada and provinces, 1991, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004(in real 2001 dollars)

1991 2000 2002 2003 2004percentage

millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of changeJurisdiction and R&D contributing sector dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars 1991/2004

Canada, total 12,556 20,814 23,299 23,331 24,189 93

Government 2,347 2,362 2,479 2,299 2,241 -5Federal government 1,965 2,104 2,168 1,997 1,938 -1Provincial governments 382 258 312 302 303 -21

Business enterprise 6,245 12,536 13,378 13,138 13,434 115University 3,835 5,859 7,379 7,806 8,407 119Private non-profit 128 58 62 88 108 -16

Newfoundland and Labrador, total 129 138 153 162 150 17

Government 47 35 37 27 25 -48Federal government 43 30 32 22 20 -52Provincial government 5 5 5 5 4 -9

Business enterprise 12 20 21 25 23 90University 69 83 95 110 102 47Private non-profit 0 0 0 0 0 0

Prince Edward Island, total 18 37 30 42 37 102

Government 12 16 8 11 9 -19Federal government 12 16 8 11 9 -19Provincial government 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nova Scotia, total 276 370 403 388 412 49



New Brunswick, total 143 163 221 215 217 52



Quebec, total 3,250 5,762 6,543 6,635 6,705 106

Government 335 414 444 381 376 12Federal government 246 355 363 302 300 22Provincial government 89 59 81 79 77 -13


Ontario, total 5,157 9,676 10,251 10,484 11,060 114

Government 420 389 392 422 392 -7Federal government 280 318 317 338 310 11Provincial government 140 72 74 84 81 -42


297

Chapter D tables D4


Table D.4.4

Expenditures on R&D, and percentage change, Canada and provinces, 1991, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004(in real 2001 dollars) (concluded)

1991 2000 2002 2003 2004percentage

millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of changeJurisdiction and R&D contributing sector dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars 1991/2004

Manitoba, total 331 422 456 440 484 46



Saskatchewan, total 273 372 417 371 374 37



Alberta, total 1,101 1,373 1,778 1,710 1,828 66


Business enterprise 487 599 804 738 794 63University 406 562 748 771 800 97Private non-profit 0 17 21 24 35 …

British Columbia, total 971 1,633 1,957 1,983 2,141 121


Business enterprise 432 983 1,091 1,096 1,228 184University 376 502 736 763 779 107Private non-profit 7 10 10 32 37 391

Notes: Real expenditures have been calculated by deflating the expenditures estimates using the GDP implicit price index re-referenced to 2001=100.1991, 2000, 2002, and 2003 are revised.

Sources: Statistics Canada. Estimates of Canadian Research and Development Expenditure (GERD), Canada, 1995 to 2006, and by Province 1995 to 2004.Catalogue No. 88E0006XIE2006009.CANSIM II Table 358-0001 (1991 expenditures).CANSIM II Table 384-0036 (GDP implicit price index).


298

D4


Table D.4.5

Sources of funds for university R&D expenditures in millions of real 2001 dollars and as a percentage of total funding,Canada and provinces, 1991, 1995, 2000, 20021, 2003 and 2004

1991 1995 2000

Jurisdiction and source percentage percentage percentageof R&D funds dollars of total dollars of total dollars of total

Canada, total 3,835.6 100.0 4,052.0 100.0 5,859.2 100.0

Business enterprise 267.3 7.0 325.7 8.0 559.7 9.6Federal government 948.4 24.7 938.3 23.2 1,307.5 22.3Provincial governments 336.9 8.8 354.8 8.8 593.9 10.1Private non-profit 250.9 6.5 291.8 7.2 423.0 7.2Foreign sources 12.8 0.3 26.7 0.7 50.2 0.9University 2,019.3 52.6 2,114.9 52.2 2,925.0 49.9

From own revenue sources 533.0 13.9 697.2 17.2 1,299.4 22.2From general university funds2 1,485.8 38.7 1,417.6 35.0 1,625.7 27.7

Newfoundland and Labrador, total 70.0 100.0 67.8 100.0 83.6 100.0

Business enterprise 2.2 3.1 4.4 6.5 6.9 8.3Federal government 20.1 28.7 17.3 25.5 23.4 27.9Provincial government 1.2 1.7 3.9 5.8 1.5 1.8Private non-profit 6.0 8.5 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.6Foreign sources 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0University 40.6 58.1 40.6 59.9 50.5 60.4

Prince Edward Island, total 5.9 100.0 4.2 100.0 16.2 100.0


Nova Scotia, total 146.6 100.0 128.7 100.0 203.6 100.0


New Brunswick, total 58.7 100.0 60.9 100.0 89.4 100.0


Quebec, total 1,169.9 100.0 1,199.9 100.0 1,652.0 100.0


Ontario, total 1,353.2 100.0 1,537.8 100.0 2,343.3 100.0

Business enterprise 66.0 4.9 128.5 8.4 253.5 10.8Federal government 332.8 24.6 347.4 22.6 510.7 21.8Provincial government 134.0 9.9 133.3 8.7 238.0 10.2Private non-profit 96.4 7.1 128.8 8.4 205.9 8.8Foreign sources 1.8 0.1 6.4 0.4 22.9 1.0University 722.2 53.4 793.4 51.6 1,112.3 47.5

299

Chapter D tables D4


Table D.4.5

Sources of funds for university R&D expenditures in millions of real 2001 dollars and as a percentage of total funding,Canada and provinces, 1991, 1995, 2000, 20021, 2003 and 2004 (continued)

1991 1995 2000

Jurisdiction and source percentage percentage percentageR&D funds dollars of total dollars of total dollars of total

Manitoba, total 132.5 100.0 124.4 100.0 194.2 100.0


Saskatchewan, total 127.1 100.0 125.8 100.0 225.7 100.0


Alberta, total 405.4 100.0 429.4 100.0 560.6 100.0


British Columbia, total 375.6 100.0 386.8 100.0 502.7 100.0



300

D4


Table D.4.5

Sources of funds for university R&D expenditures in millions of real 2001 dollars and as a percentage of total funding,Canada and provinces, 1991, 1995, 2000, 20021, 2003 and 2004 (continued)

2002 2003 2004 1991/2004

Jurisdiction and source percentage percentage percentage percentageof R&D funds dollars of total dollars of total dollars of total change

Canada, total 7,379.2 100.0 7,806.7 100.0 8,406.7 100.0 119.2

Business enterprise 636.6 8.6 651.0 8.3 691.3 8.2 158.6Federal government 1,798.2 24.4 2,091.5 26.8 2,173.9 25.9 129.2Provincial governments 820.1 11.1 976.0 12.5 966.5 11.5 186.9Private non-profit 598.3 8.1 574.6 7.4 647.9 7.7 158.2Foreign sources 99.5 1.3 72.7 0.9 89.0 1.1 594.0University 3,426.5 46.4 3,441.0 44.1 3,838.0 45.7 90.1

From own revenue sources 1,416.3 19.2 1,636.1 21.0 1,747.5 20.8 227.8From general university funds2 2,010.2 27.2 1,804.9 23.1 2,090.6 24.9 40.7

Newfoundland and Labrador, total 94.7 100.0 110.3 100.0 102.3 100.0 46.2

Business enterprise 9.9 10.5 9.4 8.5 14.6 14.3 565.8Federal government 28.9 30.5 34.0 30.9 31.2 30.5 55.5Provincial government 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 -26.9Private non-profit 1.8 1.9 4.4 3.9 2.0 1.9 -67.2Foreign sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0University 52.7 55.7 61.8 56.0 53.5 52.4 31.7

Prince Edward Island, total 18.3 100.0 24.1 100.0 22.6 100.0 283.3

Business enterprise 0.5 2.7 0.4 1.6 0.7 3.3 546.2Federal government 4.2 23.0 6.3 26.2 6.5 28.9 253.4Provincial government 0.4 2.1 0.6 2.4 0.4 1.6 3,130.8Private non-profit 0.9 4.8 1.4 6.0 0.7 3.3 115.4Foreign sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0University 12.3 67.4 15.5 64.3 14.3 63.2 311.9

Nova Scotia, total 224.9 100.0 245.8 100.0 246.2 100.0 67.9

Business enterprise 20.9 9.3 20.4 8.3 21.0 8.5 272.3Federal government 51.9 23.1 56.9 23.2 67.5 27.4 29.2Provincial government 6.9 3.1 6.5 2.6 7.3 3.0 -9.3Private non-profit 17.5 7.8 22.3 9.1 20.0 8.1 323.4Foreign sources 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0University 126.4 56.2 138.8 56.5 130.3 53.0 71.8

New Brunswick, total 101.0 100.0 116.3 100.0 111.5 100.0 90.1

Business enterprise 2.8 2.7 4.1 3.5 3.9 3.5 -21.3Federal government 20.6 20.4 29.7 25.5 30.1 27.0 107.6Provincial government 2.3 2.3 3.8 3.2 3.3 3.0 -14.8Private non-profit 6.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 5.4 4.8 127.3Foreign sources 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 …University 68.4 67.7 71.6 61.5 68.7 61.6 108.6

Quebec, total 2,037.7 100.0 2,255.5 100.0 2,291.4 100.0 95.9

Business enterprise 172.2 8.5 179.8 8.0 168.5 7.3 18.6Federal government 519.4 25.5 620.9 27.5 608.5 26.6 154.6Provincial government 257.1 12.6 320.8 14.2 297.9 13.0 214.0Private non-profit 167.9 8.2 159.2 7.1 160.5 7.0 129.2Foreign sources 25.7 1.3 14.8 0.7 17.5 0.8 295.5University 895.4 43.9 960.1 42.6 1,038.4 45.3 67.7

Ontario, total 2,933.4 100.0 3,072.1 100.0 3,619.9 100.0 167.5

Business enterprise 289.1 9.9 283.5 9.2 371.7 10.3 463.0Federal government 670.8 22.9 796.4 25.9 862.9 23.8 159.3Provincial government 301.3 10.3 344.1 11.2 369.2 10.2 175.6Private non-profit 234.4 8.0 234.6 7.6 267.0 7.4 176.9Foreign sources 51.0 1.7 41.9 1.4 58.4 1.6 3,167.9University 1,386.7 47.3 1,371.7 44.7 1,690.7 46.7 134.1

301

Chapter D tables D4


Table D.4.5

Sources of funds for university R&D expenditures in millions of real 2001 dollars and as a percentage of total funding,Canada and provinces, 1991, 1995, 2000, 20021, 2003 and 2004 (concluded)

2002 2003 2004 1991/2004

Jurisdiction and source percentage percentage percentage percentageof R&D funds dollars of total dollars of total dollars of total change

Manitoba, total 219.5 100.0 230.9 100.0 243.2 100.0 83.5

Business enterprise 17.6 8.0 18.8 8.1 15.3 6.3 310.7Federal government 54.5 24.8 60.4 26.1 67.3 27.7 102.0Provincial government 15.5 7.0 15.3 6.6 17.6 7.2 202.9Private non-profit 24.0 10.9 24.0 10.4 27.1 11.1 74.7Foreign sources 2.2 1.0 1.7 0.8 1.4 0.6 -47.7University 105.8 48.2 110.7 48.0 114.5 47.1 59.9

Saskatchewan, total 249.2 100.0 230.8 100.0 217.0 100.0 70.8

Business enterprise 15.3 6.1 16.7 7.2 16.1 7.4 265.6Federal government 54.5 21.9 60.1 26.1 57.4 26.5 74.3Provincial government 34.3 13.8 28.1 12.2 24.6 11.3 69.4Private non-profit 20.6 8.3 11.0 4.8 11.0 5.1 129.4Foreign sources 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 -64.8University 124.4 49.9 114.2 49.5 107.9 49.7 53.8

Alberta, total 747.6 100.0 772.1 100.0 799.9 100.0 97.3

Business enterprise 45.7 6.1 55.9 7.2 52.6 6.6 185.6Federal government 185.7 24.8 206.1 26.7 182.8 22.9 87.9Provincial government 125.2 16.7 170.4 22.1 206.4 25.8 306.2Private non-profit 53.5 7.2 41.3 5.3 44.3 5.5 46.4Foreign sources 7.0 0.9 5.6 0.7 4.8 0.6 244.5University 330.5 44.2 292.7 37.9 308.9 38.6 49.0

British Columbia, total 736.5 100.0 763.0 100.0 779.2 100.0 107.5

Business enterprise 60.1 8.2 63.7 8.3 29.7 3.8 69.9Federal government 204.5 27.8 224.8 29.5 266.9 34.2 105.6Provincial government 75.0 10.2 85.0 11.1 36.1 4.6 39.2Private non-profit 69.9 9.5 71.1 9.3 113.4 14.6 431.2Foreign sources 10.9 1.5 7.2 0.9 7.5 1.0 202.3University 316.0 42.9 311.2 40.8 325.6 41.8 82.5

1. 1991, 1995, and 2000 data are revised.2. Data on general university funds are not available at the provincial level.Note: Sources of funds in real dollars have been calculated by deflating the estimates using the GDP implicit price index re-referenced to 2001=100.Sources: Statistics Canada. Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division. Science and Technology Surveys Section.

CANSIM II Table 384-0036 (GDP implicit price index).

303

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.1

Comparison of provinces and territories based on average proficiency scores, by literacy domain,population aged 16 and over, 2003

Confidence interval – Confidence interval –Average score Standard error 95% upper limit 95% lower limit

Prose proficiency

Canada 272 (0.7) 274 271

Newfoundland and Labrador 263 (2.0) 267 259Prince Edward Island 272 (2.6) 277 267Nova Scotia 276 (1.9) 280 273New Brunswick 264 (2.1) 268 260Quebec 266 (1.2) 269 264Ontario 270 (1.4) 273 267Manitoba 274 (1.7) 277 270Saskatchewan 283 (2.2) 287 279Alberta 283 (1.9) 286 279British Columbia 281 (1.2) 283 279Yukon 292 (1.7) 296 289Northwest Territories 275 (2.4) 280 271Nunavut 230 (2.5) 235 225

Document proficiency

Canada 271 (0.6) 272 270


Tables D5


304

D5


Table D.5.1

Comparison of provinces and territories based on average proficiency scores, by literacy domain,population aged 16 and over, 2003 (concluded)

Confidence interval – Confidence interval –Average score Standard error 95% upper limit 95% lower limit

Numeracy

Canada 263 (0.8) 265 262


Problem solving

Canada 266 (1.0) 267 264


Source: International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, 2003, Statistics Canada.

305

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.2

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by urban/rural status, Canada and jurisdictions,population aged 16 and over, 2003

Prose proficiency

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5


Total

Canada 19.9 (0.5) 27.8 (0.7) 35.4 (0.8) 17.0 (0.7)

Newfoundland and Labrador 24.0 (1.5) 30.8 (1.7) 32.8 (1.5) 12.4 (0.9)Prince Edward Island 19.9 (1.6) 29.6 (2.0) 34.0 (2.5) 16.6 (2.1)Nova Scotia 17.3 (1.4) 27.5 (1.6) 38.4 (2.1) 16.8 (1.6)New Brunswick 22.7 (1.6) 33.3 (2.2) 31.6 (2.2) 12.4 (2.0)Quebec 22.3 (1.1) 32.3 (1.4) 32.8 (1.1) 12.6 (0.8)Ontario 21.3 (0.9) 26.7 (1.4) 35.0 (1.8) 17.0 (1.7)Manitoba 18.2 (1.2) 28.1 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 16.5 (1.3)Saskatchewan 13.5 (1.4) 26.6 (2.1) 38.9 (2.4) 21.0 (2.3)Alberta 13.6 (1.1) 25.9 (2.0) 39.6 (2.2) 21.0 (1.6)British Columbia 17.3 (0.8) 22.7 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 22.9 (1.7)Yukon 10.5 (1.5) 22.9 (1.9) 39.3 (3.4) 27.3 (2.7)Northwest Territories 19.3 (1.9) 25.8 (1.7) 35.1 (2.7) 19.8 (1.8)Nunavut 47.2 (1.9) 25.8 (2.2) 19.5 (2.6) 7.5 E (1.3)

Urban

Canada 20.1 (0.5) 27.4 (0.8) 35.1 (0.9) 17.5 (0.7)

Newfoundland and Labrador 20.4 (1.9) 30.0 (2.3) 35.3 (2.2) 14.3 (1.3)Prince Edward Island 23.6 (2.0) 27.4 (3.1) 33.4 (3.4) 15.6 E (2.9)Nova Scotia 15.8 (1.5) 25.8 (2.1) 39.9 (3.2) 18.4 (2.2)New Brunswick 19.0 (2.1) 31.3 (3.7) 34.7 (3.5) 14.9 E (3.4)Quebec 21.3 (1.3) 32.0 (1.4) 33.4 (1.4) 13.4 (0.8)Ontario 22.3 (1.0) 27.0 (1.4) 34.1 (1.9) 16.7 (1.8)Manitoba 18.4 (1.4) 26.4 (2.3) 37.8 (2.4) 17.4 (1.7)Saskatchewan 12.9 (1.8) 25.3 (2.5) 37.6 (3.8) 24.2 (3.4)Alberta 13.9 (1.3) 25.4 (2.6) 39.4 (2.7) 21.3 (1.7)British Columbia 18.4 (0.9) 21.9 (1.7) 36.3 (2.6) 23.5 (2.1)Yukon 9.7 E (2.3) 23.2 (2.9) 39.7 (4.2) 27.3 (3.1)Northwest Territories 11.7 (1.9) 24.0 (2.5) 39.7 (3.7) 24.6 (2.5)Nunavut 36.4 (3.3) 27.8 (3.0) 25.1 E (4.2) 10.8 E (2.2)

Rural

Canada 19.0 (1.0) 29.5 (1.1) 36.5 (1.5) 15.0 (1.2)

Newfoundland and Labrador 30.1 (3.0) 32.2 (2.9) 28.6 (2.7) 9.1 E (1.7)Prince Edward Island 16.6 (2.1) 31.5 (3.1) 34.5 (3.9) 17.5 E (3.4)Nova Scotia 19.3 (1.9) 29.5 (2.2) 36.5 (2.8) 14.7 (2.1)New Brunswick 26.7 (2.5) 35.4 (2.8) 28.2 (3.1) 9.7 E (2.1)Quebec 27.1 (2.4) 34.0 (3.9) 29.9 (2.8) 9.0 (1.5)Ontario 15.6 (2.2) 25.3 (2.8) 40.5 (4.5) 18.6 E (3.3)Manitoba 17.4 E (3.1) 33.7 (3.8) 35.2 (4.6) 13.7 (2.2)Saskatchewan 14.6 E (2.9) 29.1 (4.5) 41.5 (4.3) 14.8 E (3.1)Alberta 11.7 E (3.1) 28.9 (4.7) 40.4 (6.5) 19.0 E (4.0)British Columbia 11.6 E (2.4) 26.9 (3.8) 41.8 (4.3) 19.7 (3.1)Yukon 11.8 (1.8) 22.4 (3.4) 38.6 (5.9) 27.3 (3.9)Northwest Territories 34.8 (3.3) 29.4 (3.8) 25.8 E (4.6) 10.0 E (2.5)Nunavut 57.6 (2.6) 24.0 (3.1) 14.1 E (2.5) F ...

Note: An urban area has a minimum population concentration of 1,000 persons and a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre, basedon the current census population count. All territory outside urban areas is classified as rural.



306

D5


Table D.5.3

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by age group and sex, Canada and jurisdictions,population aged 16 and over, 2003

Prose proficiency


Standard Standard Standard StandardAge group percentage error percentage error percentage error percentage error

Canada

Both sexes 19.9 (0.5) 27.8 (0.7) 35.4 (0.8) 17.0 (0.7)16 to 25 9.5 (0.8) 28.3 (2.1) 40.6 (2.8) 21.6 (1.9)26 to 35 9.5 (1.0) 24.0 (2.0) 41.9 (2.1) 24.6 (1.8)36 to 45 14.7 (1.2) 26.7 (1.7) 38.2 (2.0) 20.3 (1.6)46 to 55 15.9 (0.9) 27.8 (1.3) 38.7 (1.4) 17.6 (1.0)56 to 65 26.9 (1.7) 30.9 (1.8) 31.8 (1.8) 10.4 (1.2)66 and over 51.5 (2.4) 30.6 (2.0) 15.7 (1.3) 2.2 E (0.6)

Males 19.9 (0.7) 28.6 (1.3) 36.0 (1.4) 15.5 (1.0)16 to 25 11.4 (1.2) 30.7 (3.1) 41.1 (3.5) 16.8 (1.9)26 to 35 9.2 (1.2) 24.0 (2.9) 42.7 (3.1) 24.1 (2.6)36 to 45 16.2 (2.0) 27.8 (2.7) 37.4 (3.5) 18.6 (2.6)46 to 55 17.2 (1.3) 29.3 (2.4) 38.5 (2.8) 15.0 (1.4)56 to 65 28.2 (2.8) 31.2 (3.4) 31.7 (2.7) 9.0 E (1.7)66 and over 49.3 (3.6) 29.9 (3.2) 17.7 (2.0) F ...

Females 19.8 (0.7) 26.9 (1.1) 34.7 (1.0) 18.5 (0.7)16 to 25 7.5 E (1.4) 25.7 (2.9) 40.2 (3.1) 26.7 (2.9)26 to 35 9.9 (1.4) 23.9 (2.5) 41.0 (2.8) 25.2 (2.3)36 to 45 13.2 (1.3) 25.6 (2.6) 39.1 (2.5) 22.1 (1.6)46 to 55 14.7 (1.4) 26.3 (1.7) 38.8 (2.2) 20.2 (1.7)56 to 65 25.6 (2.4) 30.7 (1.9) 32.0 (2.4) 11.7 (1.6)66 and over 53.1 (2.9) 31.1 (2.4) 14.2 (1.6) 1.5 E (0.4)


Both sexes 24.0 (1.5) 30.8 (1.7) 32.8 (1.5) 12.4 (0.9)16 to 25 8.2 E (2.3) 34.3 (5.7) 41.5 (6.2) 16.0 E (3.8)26 to 35 8.7 E (2.4) 24.0 (3.8) 46.7 (3.8) 20.6 E (4.7)36 to 45 18.0 E (3.5) 32.0 (4.4) 35.4 (3.7) 14.5 (1.8)46 to 55 24.4 (2.9) 35.0 (4.0) 29.3 (3.2) 11.2 E (2.7)56 to 65 37.5 (4.5) 32.1 (4.5) 24.2 (3.9) F ...66 and over 59.4 (4.3) 25.7 (3.8) 13.2 E (4.3) x ...

Males 27.9 (2.8) 31.8 (3.3) 31.0 (2.5) 9.3 E (1.6)16 to 25 F ... 41.7 E (9.9) 38.4 E (9.2) F ...26 to 35 F ... 23.0 E (6.7) 48.0 (7.4) F ...36 to 45 22.5 E (5.6) 36.7 E (6.6) 32.1 (4.7) 8.7 E (2.6)46 to 55 29.0 E (5.3) 35.4 E (6.3) 26.0 E (5.3) F ...56 to 65 43.1 E (7.9) 27.8 E (7.1) 22.6 E (6.3) F ...66 and over 65.8 (6.9) 19.8 E (4.8) F ... x ...

Females 20.3 (1.6) 29.9 (2.3) 34.5 (2.2) 15.3 (1.8)16 to 25 x ... 26.7 E (7.0) 44.7 E (8.2) 24.4 E (6.6)26 to 35 F ... 24.9 (3.9) 45.5 (6.1) 22.8 E (7.4)36 to 45 13.8 E (3.2) 27.6 (3.8) 38.6 (5.0) 20.1 (3.1)46 to 55 19.9 E (5.0) 34.6 (4.9) 32.6 (4.4) 12.9 E (3.6)56 to 65 32.0 (4.9) 36.4 (5.5) 25.9 E (5.9) F ...66 and over 54.2 (5.6) 30.4 E (6.0) F ... x ...

307

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.3

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by age group and sex, Canada and jurisdictions,population aged 16 and over, 2003 (continued)

Prose proficiency




Both sexes 19.9 (1.6) 29.6 (2.0) 34.0 (2.5) 16.6 (2.1)16 to 25 F ... 32.1 E (6.2) 31.0 E (6.0) 22.7 E (5.1)26 to 35 x ... 24.4 E (7.2) 47.1 E (9.0) 24.0 E (7.7)36 to 45 14.1 E (3.5) 28.0 E (5.2) 38.4 E (6.7) 19.5 E (6.0)46 to 55 15.7 E (4.0) 25.1 E (4.6) 40.2 (4.6) 19.0 E (5.0)56 to 65 24.1 E (5.9) 36.7 E (6.6) 31.9 E (5.7) F ...66 and over 53.8 (4.9) 33.9 (5.4) 10.8 E (2.8) x ...

Males 23.9 (3.0) 31.0 (3.6) 33.8 (3.6) 11.2 E (2.3)16 to 25 F ... 37.6 E (9.6) F ... F ...26 to 35 x ... F ... 49.0 E (12.9) F ...36 to 45 21.4 E (6.0) 28.0 E (9.1) 39.8 E (8.9) F ...46 to 55 F ... F ... 40.0 (6.2) F ...56 to 65 29.2 E (8.7) 37.4 E (10.9) F ... x ...66 and over 53.9 E (10.4) 34.5 E (8.7) F ... x ...

Females 16.1 (1.4) 28.2 (4.1) 34.1 (3.8) 21.6 E (3.6)16 to 25 F ... 26.6 E (7.6) 31.7 E (8.4) F ...26 to 35 x ... F ... 45.3 E (14.3) F ...36 to 45 F ... 28.0 E (6.9) 37.0 E (8.5) F ...46 to 55 F ... 27.7 E (8.0) 40.3 E (8.5) 24.3 E (6.6)56 to 65 F ... 36.1 E (7.2) 40.0 (6.1) x ...66 and over 53.6 (7.4) 33.4 E (9.0) F ... x ...

Nova Scotia

Both sexes 17.3 (1.4) 27.5 (1.6) 38.4 (2.1) 16.8 (1.6)16 to 25 10.0 E (3.1) 28.5 (4.0) 43.7 (4.8) 17.8 E (4.0)26 to 35 F ... 19.3 E (3.5) 51.7 (5.3) 24.0 E (4.7)36 to 45 12.3 E (2.5) 24.8 (3.4) 40.4 (4.4) 22.5 (3.7)46 to 55 13.7 E (2.6) 27.2 (3.1) 39.5 (4.2) 19.6 (3.0)56 to 65 19.5 (2.8) 34.8 (5.3) 34.7 (4.8) 11.0 E (2.6)66 and over 48.2 (4.8) 32.8 (4.2) 17.3 (2.7) x ...

Males 18.7 (2.1) 26.8 (2.1) 39.7 (2.7) 14.8 (2.0)16 to 25 F ... 32.7 E (5.6) 46.5 E (7.9) F ...26 to 35 x ... 20.9 E (5.5) 56.6 (8.8) F ...36 to 45 16.8 E (3.9) 25.0 E (4.6) 37.5 (5.3) 20.7 E (5.1)46 to 55 18.2 E (4.9) 27.4 E (5.0) 36.4 (5.1) 18.1 E (4.7)56 to 65 20.1 E (5.5) 31.0 E (6.3) 37.0 (5.9) 12.0 E (3.9)66 and over 52.4 (6.7) 24.5 E (5.2) 21.0 E (4.8) x ...

Females 16.1 (2.0) 28.0 (3.1) 37.2 (2.5) 18.6 (2.1)16 to 25 F ... 24.1 E (6.8) 40.9 E (7.9) 23.2 E (6.6)26 to 35 F ... 17.9 E (4.3) 47.1 (6.7) 29.1 E (5.0)36 to 45 8.1 E (2.4) 24.6 E (4.4) 43.1 (6.1) 24.2 E (4.9)46 to 55 9.3 E (2.5) 26.9 E (5.5) 42.7 (6.8) 21.1 E (3.9)56 to 65 19.0 E (3.7) 38.5 E (8.1) 32.4 E (7.5) F ...66 and over 45.1 (6.0) 38.9 (6.1) 14.6 E (3.4) x ...


308

D5


Table D.5.3


Prose proficiency



New Brunswick

Both sexes 22.7 (1.6) 33.3 (2.2) 31.6 (2.2) 12.4 (2.0)16 to 25 F ... 29.1 E (7.0) 44.4 E (8.3) F ...26 to 35 10.4 E (3.0) 31.7 E (6.3) 40.6 (6.5) 17.2 E (5.0)36 to 45 14.5 (2.4) 37.1 (4.6) 32.8 (5.2) 15.6 E (3.5)46 to 55 23.3 E (4.3) 31.4 E (5.8) 32.2 (5.1) 13.2 E (3.6)56 to 65 28.1 E (5.4) 40.7 (5.7) 25.2 E (6.3) F ...66 and over 58.7 (6.2) 30.4 E (5.3) F ... x ...

Males 25.3 (2.6) 33.2 (3.8) 30.4 (3.4) 11.2 E (2.6)16 to 25 F ... F ... 37.7 E (12.2) F ...26 to 35 F ... 34.4 E (9.2) 32.5 E (7.8) F ...36 to 45 12.9 E (3.9) 34.7 E (7.7) 35.3 E (8.4) F ...46 to 55 29.2 E (6.6) 28.1 E (6.9) 34.3 E (7.4) F ...56 to 65 34.9 E (7.8) 34.5 E (7.6) F ... x ...66 and over 58.9 E (10.6) 30.5 E (10.1) F ... x ...

Females 20.3 (1.6) 33.4 (2.3) 32.8 (2.7) 13.5 E (2.6)16 to 25 x ... 20.9 E (5.2) 51.3 E (11.1) 24.9 E (8.0)26 to 35 F ... 29.1 E (7.6) 48.6 E (9.8) F ...36 to 45 16.1 E (5.3) 39.5 (6.6) 30.3 E (7.7) F ...46 to 55 17.5 E (4.0) 34.6 E (8.3) 30.1 E (7.7) F ...56 to 65 21.4 E (7.1) 46.8 E (8.7) 26.9 E (6.5) x ...66 and over 58.6 (6.7) 30.3 E (5.9) F ... x ...

Quebec

Both sexes 22.3 (1.1) 32.3 (1.4) 32.8 (1.1) 12.6 (0.8)16 to 25 8.5 E (1.4) 27.6 (1.9) 41.1 (2.9) 22.8 (2.1)26 to 35 11.9 (1.7) 27.7 (2.8) 41.3 (3.3) 19.0 (2.4)36 to 45 15.3 (1.4) 33.8 (2.3) 37.5 (2.2) 13.5 (2.1)46 to 55 16.1 (1.3) 37.3 (3.0) 35.4 (3.5) 11.2 E (2.1)56 to 65 28.2 (2.0) 39.0 (3.4) 27.1 (2.7) F ...66 and over 62.1 (5.4) 28.4 E (5.3) F ... F ...

Males 22.0 (1.3) 32.7 (2.5) 33.3 (1.7) 12.0 (1.2)16 to 25 10.8 E (2.3) 28.0 (2.9) 40.9 (3.3) 20.3 (2.2)26 to 35 10.9 E (2.2) 28.4 E (5.0) 42.7 (4.4) 18.0 E (3.6)36 to 45 17.0 (2.1) 34.4 (3.5) 36.0 (3.5) 12.7 E (3.6)46 to 55 16.4 (2.1) 38.5 (5.4) 35.0 (5.0) 10.2 E (2.1)56 to 65 30.2 (4.3) 39.8 (4.4) 24.5 E (4.3) F ...66 and over 61.0 (9.1) 25.4 E (7.7) F ... x ...

Females 22.6 (1.8) 32.0 (2.1) 32.3 (1.4) 13.1 (0.8)16 to 25 6.1 E (1.6) 27.1 (3.0) 41.4 (3.7) 25.4 (3.4)26 to 35 13.0 E (2.7) 27.0 (4.0) 39.9 (5.4) 20.1 (3.1)36 to 45 13.5 (1.9) 33.2 (3.4) 39.0 (3.3) 14.3 (1.7)46 to 55 15.9 (2.1) 36.1 (2.8) 35.8 (4.0) 12.2 E (2.6)56 to 65 26.4 (3.9) 38.1 (4.9) 29.6 (4.5) F ...66 and over 62.9 (8.0) 30.5 E (8.6) F ... x ...

309

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.3


Prose proficiency



Ontario

Both sexes 21.3 (0.9) 26.7 (1.4) 35.0 (1.8) 17.0 (1.7)16 to 25 10.6 E (2.3) 28.4 (4.7) 40.1 (5.6) 20.9 E (4.0)26 to 35 9.0 E (1.7) 24.0 (3.3) 41.6 (5.0) 25.5 E (4.5)36 to 45 16.7 (2.5) 25.1 (3.3) 37.7 (3.9) 20.5 (3.2)46 to 55 18.8 (2.0) 25.8 (2.9) 39.4 (3.6) 16.1 (2.2)56 to 65 30.6 (3.5) 27.5 (3.8) 30.4 (3.9) 11.6 E (3.1)66 and over 51.9 (3.8) 31.3 (3.4) 14.9 E (2.8) F ...

Males 21.4 (1.7) 26.9 (2.3) 36.2 (3.2) 15.4 (2.4)16 to 25 12.3 E (3.3) 31.6 E (7.7) 42.2 E (7.6) 13.9 E (4.0)26 to 35 10.0 E (2.6) 22.3 E (4.4) 43.7 (6.7) 24.1 E (6.4)36 to 45 18.3 E (4.6) 24.9 E (5.2) 37.0 E (6.5) 19.8 E (4.6)46 to 55 18.9 E (3.2) 27.4 (4.5) 39.7 (5.1) 14.1 E (3.0)56 to 65 32.0 E (6.2) 25.1 E (8.0) 31.9 E (7.0) F ...66 and over 49.8 (6.4) 32.2 E (5.5) 14.8 E (4.0) F ...

Females 21.1 (1.3) 26.5 (2.1) 33.9 (2.1) 18.5 (1.6)16 to 25 F ... 25.1 E (5.5) 38.0 E (7.1) 28.1 E (6.3)26 to 35 7.9 E (2.3) 25.7 E (4.6) 39.5 (5.3) 26.8 E (5.6)36 to 45 15.1 E (2.9) 25.3 E (5.7) 38.4 (5.1) 21.2 E (3.6)46 to 55 18.6 (2.9) 24.3 (3.9) 39.0 (5.3) 18.1 E (3.4)56 to 65 29.2 (4.7) 29.8 (3.9) 28.9 (3.8) 12.2 E (3.1)66 and over 53.5 (4.5) 30.6 (4.0) 15.0 E (3.5) x ...

Manitoba

Both sexes 18.2 (1.2) 28.1 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 16.5 (1.3)16 to 25 9.3 E (2.2) 29.9 (4.3) 37.9 (6.2) 22.9 E (4.1)26 to 35 11.1 E (2.9) 23.3 (3.5) 46.1 (5.9) 19.5 E (6.1)36 to 45 13.2 E (2.7) 25.7 (3.9) 41.1 (3.9) 20.0 (3.3)46 to 55 12.0 E (2.2) 27.8 (3.7) 41.2 (4.3) 18.9 (2.9)56 to 65 20.2 E (3.9) 28.9 (4.6) 37.6 (6.0) 13.2 E (3.9)66 and over 47.5 (4.1) 33.9 (4.8) 16.7 E (3.0) x ...

Males 17.5 (1.3) 31.2 (2.4) 37.5 (2.9) 13.7 (1.6)16 to 25 12.9 E (3.6) 35.6 E (6.6) 34.5 E (6.4) 17.0 E (4.3)26 to 35 F ... 26.8 E (6.4) 48.1 (6.2) 17.8 E (4.9)36 to 45 15.9 E (4.5) 30.4 E (5.7) 39.4 (4.6) 14.2 E (3.4)46 to 55 13.3 E (3.5) 29.6 (3.9) 39.4 (4.9) 17.7 E (3.6)56 to 65 17.7 E (5.1) 31.6 E (7.9) 40.8 E (7.5) F ...66 and over 44.6 (5.0) 34.0 (4.8) 19.9 E (5.3) x ...

Females 18.8 (2.1) 25.1 (2.6) 36.8 (2.6) 19.3 (1.9)16 to 25 5.4 E (1.8) 24.0 E (5.5) 41.5 E (9.5) 29.1 E (7.3)26 to 35 15.1 E (4.6) 19.6 E (4.8) 44.1 E (9.1) F ...36 to 45 10.5 E (3.4) 20.8 E (4.3) 42.8 (5.0) 25.9 E (5.3)46 to 55 F ... 26.1 E (7.4) 43.0 E (7.4) 20.1 E (4.8)56 to 65 22.7 E (5.4) 26.3 (4.4) 34.5 E (7.8) 16.5 E (5.3)66 and over 49.8 (7.1) 33.9 E (8.0) 14.3 E (4.6) x ...


310

D5


Table D.5.3


Prose proficiency



Saskatchewan

Both sexes 13.5 (1.4) 26.6 (2.1) 38.9 (2.4) 21.0 (2.3)16 to 25 F ... 32.9 E (6.8) 38.3 E (8.6) 24.8 E (6.4)26 to 35 F ... 20.6 E (6.6) 44.5 (7.0) 27.7 E (6.3)36 to 45 F ... 22.5 E (7.1) 46.5 (6.5) 26.5 E (6.3)46 to 55 7.8 E (2.5) 25.5 E (6.0) 42.1 (6.5) 24.6 E (4.9)56 to 65 F ... 32.2 E (7.1) 41.5 (5.9) F ...66 and over 46.9 (6.0) 27.5 E (4.9) 20.7 E (5.7) F ...

Males 15.0 (2.0) 27.6 (3.4) 40.1 (3.6) 17.2 E (3.0)16 to 25 F ... 40.1 E (11.9) 40.0 E (11.9) F ...26 to 35 F ... F ... 47.4 E (11.8) F ...36 to 45 F ... F ... 50.9 (8.1) F ...46 to 55 F ... 26.0 E (7.8) 41.1 E (8.7) 23.4 E (7.5)56 to 65 F ... F ... 41.9 E (10.7) x ...66 and over 52.4 (7.0) 27.7 E (7.1) F ... x ...

Females 12.0 (1.8) 25.7 (2.8) 37.7 (4.0) 24.6 (3.1)16 to 25 F ... F ... F ... 36.2 E (9.2)26 to 35 F ... F ... 41.6 E (9.5) 28.9 E (6.7)36 to 45 F ... 21.5 E (7.1) 42.1 E (7.7) 34.0 E (8.6)46 to 55 F ... 25.0 E (6.4) 43.2 E (7.8) 25.8 E (6.9)56 to 65 F ... 34.0 E (10.7) 41.1 E (8.3) F ...66 and over 42.6 E (8.7) 27.4 E (6.3) F ... x ...

Alberta

Both sexes 13.6 (1.1) 25.9 (2.0) 39.6 (2.2) 21.0 (1.6)16 to 25 F ... 29.9 (3.8) 41.6 (4.9) 22.8 (3.2)26 to 35 F ... 23.4 E (6.2) 45.5 (6.2) 26.3 (3.9)36 to 45 12.0 E (3.0) 24.7 (3.6) 40.1 (3.9) 23.2 (3.6)46 to 55 10.0 E (2.4) 22.6 (3.8) 42.6 (4.0) 24.7 (2.8)56 to 65 21.0 E (4.8) 26.3 E (5.9) 36.9 (5.4) 15.8 E (3.7)66 and over 43.2 (4.7) 30.0 (4.1) 23.1 E (4.3) F ...

Males 13.9 (1.5) 27.5 (2.9) 40.4 (3.1) 18.2 (2.4)16 to 25 F ... 29.6 E (6.3) 40.7 E (7.4) 22.8 E (5.6)26 to 35 F ... 25.5 E (6.9) 44.5 E (7.7) 25.2 E (5.8)36 to 45 15.8 E (4.5) 25.2 E (6.9) 39.9 (6.4) 19.1 E (6.0)46 to 55 9.9 E (2.8) 26.0 E (4.8) 46.3 (5.3) 17.8 E (4.7)56 to 65 24.6 E (7.5) 29.7 E (8.8) 37.5 E (7.7) F ...66 and over 37.5 (5.7) 31.8 E (6.7) 25.9 E (6.2) x ...

Females 13.2 (1.8) 24.3 (2.6) 38.7 (3.2) 23.8 (1.8)16 to 25 F ... 30.1 E (6.6) 42.5 (6.2) 22.7 E (5.0)26 to 35 F ... F ... 46.6 E (8.6) 27.5 E (6.7)36 to 45 F ... 24.2 E (4.1) 40.3 (4.9) 27.3 (3.4)46 to 55 F ... 19.1 E (5.0) 38.8 (5.4) 32.0 (4.8)56 to 65 17.4 E (5.0) 22.8 E (7.2) 36.4 E (8.5) 23.3 E (7.7)66 and over 47.8 (6.3) 28.5 E (5.0) 20.8 E (5.1) x ...

311

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.3

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by age group and sex, Canada and jurisdictions,population aged 16 and over,2003 (continued)

Prose proficiency



British Columbia

Both sexes 17.3 (0.8) 22.7 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 22.9 (1.7)16 to 25 12.3 E (2.4) 25.0 (3.2) 41.0 (3.2) 21.7 (2.2)26 to 35 12.1 E (2.9) 17.9 E (3.7) 36.1 (3.5) 33.9 (4.3)36 to 45 12.4 E (2.5) 19.7 E (3.4) 38.2 (5.1) 29.7 (4.4)46 to 55 12.9 E (2.7) 18.5 E (3.4) 41.1 (3.5) 27.6 (3.8)56 to 65 22.5 E (3.9) 25.1 E (4.3) 39.9 (5.4) 12.5 E (2.8)66 and over 37.0 (3.1) 32.7 (4.1) 25.4 E (5.3) F ...

Males 16.1 (1.3) 25.5 (2.4) 36.7 (2.9) 21.7 (2.6)16 to 25 14.2 E (2.7) 26.9 E (4.8) 41.2 (4.3) 17.7 (2.8)26 to 35 F ... 19.6 E (5.4) 33.6 E (6.5) 39.4 (5.9)36 to 45 F ... 25.5 E (4.9) 36.8 E (8.8) 27.3 E (7.2)46 to 55 17.5 E (4.3) 20.8 E (4.8) 38.5 (4.4) 23.1 E (4.5)56 to 65 20.2 E (3.9) 32.1 E (5.8) 38.3 E (6.6) F ...66 and over 31.9 (5.0) 31.4 E (6.6) 30.6 E (6.7) F ...

Females 18.4 (1.3) 19.9 (1.7) 37.6 (2.2) 24.0 (1.9)16 to 25 F ... 23.0 E (4.3) 40.7 (5.2) 26.2 (4.1)26 to 35 16.6 E (4.2) 16.2 E (3.7) 38.6 (5.5) 28.6 E (6.0)36 to 45 14.2 E (3.2) 14.4 E (3.4) 39.5 (4.6) 31.9 (5.2)46 to 55 8.2 E (2.6) 16.1 E (3.7) 43.6 (6.1) 32.1 E (5.4)56 to 65 24.7 E (6.4) 18.3 E (5.9) 41.5 E (8.7) 15.4 E (4.6)66 and over 41.1 (4.5) 33.8 (4.1) 21.1 E (5.5) F ...

Yukon

Both sexes 10.5 (1.5) 22.9 (1.9) 39.3 (3.4) 27.3 (2.7)16 to 25 F ... 26.2 E (7.0) 44.1 E (9.7) F ...26 to 35 F ... 20.5 E (5.0) 39.9 E (7.7) 30.6 E (5.7)36 to 45 9.0 E (2.5) 22.7 E (4.3) 38.7 (4.5) 29.5 E (5.0)46 to 55 5.9 E (1.6) 17.5 E (4.3) 36.5 E (6.3) 40.1 (4.8)56 to 65 F ... 23.6 E (6.1) 43.6 (7.0) 18.3 E (4.8)66 and over 30.6 E (7.4) F ... F ... x ...

Males 10.6 E (2.2) 24.3 (3.0) 39.6 (4.2) 25.4 (3.8)16 to 25 F ... 27.6 E (8.7) 39.7 E (13.1) F ...26 to 35 F ... F ... 40.4 E (12.0) 35.1 E (10.4)36 to 45 F ... 23.0 E (6.5) 43.0 E (8.7) 23.8 E (7.8)46 to 55 F ... F ... 34.8 E (9.7) 42.1 (6.0)56 to 65 F ... F ... 47.0 E (9.5) F ...66 and over 29.8 E (8.9) F ... F ... x ...

Females 10.3 E (2.0) 21.6 (2.1) 39.0 (4.3) 29.1 (3.4)16 to 25 F ... F ... 48.4 E (13.1) F ...26 to 35 F ... F ... 39.4 E (10.8) 26.9 E (6.8)36 to 45 F ... 22.4 E (5.2) 34.7 E (6.7) 35.0 E (6.4)46 to 55 F ... 16.6 E (3.9) 38.1 E (7.9) 38.0 E (8.1)56 to 65 F ... F ... 39.8 E (11.8) 27.1 E (8.6)66 and over 31.2 E (9.4) F ... F ... x ...


312

D5


Table D.5.3

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by age group and sex, Canada and jurisdictions, population aged 16 and over,2003 (concluded)

Prose proficiency




Both sexes 19.3 (1.9) 25.8 (1.7) 35.1 (2.7) 19.8 (1.8)16 to 25 17.1 E (4.0) 31.3 (4.3) 37.3 (6.0) 14.3 E (4.4)26 to 35 13.8 E (3.5) 24.7 E (5.5) 37.0 (5.4) 24.4 E (4.3)36 to 45 17.3 E (4.2) 24.2 E (4.4) 34.3 E (5.8) 24.2 E (4.2)46 to 55 16.9 E (3.0) 23.6 E (4.5) 37.9 E (6.3) 21.5 E (6.0)56 to 65 19.1 E (5.7) 28.0 E (8.2) 39.4 E (10.7) F ...66 and over 74.8 (11.5) F ... x ... x ...

Males 20.2 (2.8) 28.2 (3.4) 34.4 (2.9) 17.1 (2.8)16 to 25 18.7 E (5.3) 35.0 E (6.2) 37.4 E (6.5) F ...26 to 35 F ... 28.8 E (9.3) 37.5 E (8.5) F ...36 to 45 18.6 E (4.5) 26.6 E (5.8) 32.3 E (7.6) 22.4 E (5.7)46 to 55 17.0 E (3.8) 24.4 E (5.7) 33.6 E (8.3) F ...56 to 65 20.5 E (6.7) F ... 41.0 E (9.6) x ...66 and over 67.6 E (16.7) F ... x ... x ...

Females 18.3 (2.6) 23.1 (2.9) 35.9 (4.2) 22.7 (3.3)16 to 25 15.4 E (5.0) 27.3 E (6.6) 37.2 E (9.7) F ...26 to 35 11.1 E (3.5) 20.7 E (5.2) 36.6 E (6.6) 31.6 E (5.8)36 to 45 F ... 21.6 E (6.0) 36.5 E (8.9) 26.0 E (7.1)46 to 55 16.8 E (4.9) 22.7 E (7.2) 43.3 E (8.3) F ...56 to 65 F ... F ... F ... x ...66 and over 81.1 (13.4) x ... x ... x ...

Nunavut

Both sexes 47.2 (1.9) 25.8 (2.2) 19.5 (2.6) 7.5 E (1.3)16 to 25 50.9 (5.6) 31.9 (4.8) 14.1 E (4.0) F ...26 to 35 42.5 (4.5) 22.4 E (4.3) 24.3 E (4.9) F ...36 to 45 45.2 (6.2) 27.0 E (4.5) 19.8 E (5.0) F ...46 to 55 35.6 E (6.0) 26.0 E (6.2) 27.4 E (8.1) F ...56 to 65 66.5 (7.8) F ... F ... x ...66 and over 78.9 (10.5) x ... x ... x ...

Males 46.5 (2.6) 26.8 (3.2) 18.8 (2.5) 7.8 E (2.1)16 to 25 48.3 (7.7) 39.0 E (6.8) F ... x ...26 to 35 43.2 (6.3) 20.9 E (6.4) 24.1 E (6.5) F ...36 to 45 43.0 E (7.9) 28.5 E (6.7) F ... F ...46 to 55 39.3 E (10.6) 20.7 E (6.4) 30.2 E (7.6) F ...56 to 65 62.0 E (13.4) F ... x ... x ...66 and over 75.6 E (13.1) x ... x ... x ...

Females 47.9 (2.8) 24.8 (3.2) 20.1 E (4.2) 7.1 E (2.2)16 to 25 53.3 (7.2) 25.1 E (6.0) F ... x ...26 to 35 41.9 (6.2) 23.8 E (5.7) 24.4 E (6.2) F ...36 to 45 47.7 (7.7) 25.3 E (7.9) F ... x ...46 to 55 31.2 E (8.7) 32.1 E (10.6) F ... F ...56 to 65 72.2 (8.5) x ... x ... x ...66 and over 83.3 E (19.4) x ... x ... x ...


313

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.4

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by educational attainment, Canada and jurisdictions, population aged 16 and over, 2003

Prose proficiency



CanadaTotal education 19.9 (0.5) 27.8 (0.7) 35.4 (0.8) 17.0 (0.7)High school not completed 45.7 (1.2) 32.0 (1.4) 18.4 (1.1) 3.9 (0.6)High school 15.8 (1.0) 31.9 (1.1) 38.9 (1.3) 13.4 (1.0)Trade-vocational 10.6 (1.1) 29.0 (2.0) 42.8 (2.5) 17.6 (2.1)Non-university postsecondary 8.9 (1.2) 26.0 (2.0) 42.4 (2.2) 22.7 (2.0)University 5.1 (0.6) 17.1 (1.3) 43.4 (1.2) 34.5 (1.5)

Newfoundland and LabradorTotal education 24.0 (1.5) 30.8 (1.7) 32.8 (1.5) 12.4 (0.9)High school not completed 51.7 (2.6) 34.0 (2.4) 12.3 E (2.2) F ...High school 14.4 (2.2) 35.5 (3.8) 38.3 (3.6) 11.8 E (2.4)Trade-vocational F ... 36.2 E (6.1) 42.9 E (8.1) F ...Non-university postsecondary 7.4 E (2.3) 23.7 E (4.5) 49.9 (4.4) 19.0 E (3.7)University x ... 12.0 E (3.1) 49.0 (4.4) 37.2 (4.2)

Prince Edward IslandTotal education 19.9 (1.6) 29.6 (2.0) 34.0 (2.5) 16.6 (2.1)High school not completed 44.9 (3.2) 34.8 (3.0) 17.4 E (2.9) F ...High school 12.1 E (3.0) 35.4 (5.3) 37.9 (5.1) 14.5 E (3.1)Trade-vocational 11.7 E (3.7) 35.6 E (8.2) 42.2 E (7.3) F ...Non-university postsecondary x ... 30.0 E (6.6) 41.8 E (10.8) F ...University x ... F ... 47.0 E (7.9) 41.6 E (7.3)

Nova ScotiaTotal education 17.3 (1.4) 27.5 (1.6) 38.4 (2.1) 16.8 (1.6)High school not completed 39.7 (2.9) 35.1 (3.2) 21.1 (2.4) F ...High school 11.7 E (2.7) 32.2 (3.6) 41.8 (4.0) 14.3 (2.0)Trade-vocational 6.9 E (2.1) 26.2 (3.9) 48.7 (6.0) 18.2 E (5.2)Non-university postsecondary 8.7 E (2.9) 26.1 E (4.5) 47.6 (6.7) 17.6 E (5.6)University F ... 10.1 E (2.4) 48.6 (5.6) 38.9 (4.4)

New BrunswickTotal education 22.7 (1.6) 33.3 (2.2) 31.6 (2.2) 12.4 (2.0)High school not completed 49.4 (3.8) 34.4 (3.9) 13.8 E (3.3) F ...High school 17.4 E (3.6) 39.5 (4.0) 34.2 (3.4) 8.9 E (2.8)Trade-vocational F ... 36.5 E (8.2) 36.1 (5.3) 13.1 E (4.0)Non-university postsecondary F ... 26.3 E (8.5) 48.7 E (13.4) F ...University F ... 17.7 E (5.7) 45.1 (6.2) 34.8 E (7.2)

QuebecTotal education 22.3 (1.1) 32.3 (1.4) 32.8 (1.1) 12.6 (0.8)High school not completed 51.6 (2.2) 33.6 (2.9) 13.1 (1.6) 1.6 E (0.5)High school 17.4 (2.1) 38.5 (2.1) 36.0 (2.2) 8.0 (0.9)Trade-vocational 10.0 E (2.5) 28.8 (4.0) 44.7 (5.1) 16.5 E (3.3)Non-university postsecondary 8.5 E (2.6) 34.9 (3.6) 40.9 (3.2) 15.7 (2.4)University 4.9 E (1.1) 21.8 (2.6) 43.0 (2.2) 30.3 (2.7)

OntarioTotal education 21.3 (0.9) 26.7 (1.4) 35.0 (1.8) 17.0 (1.7)High school not completed 47.9 (3.2) 29.8 (3.4) 18.0 (1.9) 4.3 E (1.4)High school 17.8 (1.8) 30.7 (2.2) 38.0 (2.6) 13.4 E (2.4)Trade-vocational 15.0 E (2.6) 30.3 (3.6) 36.6 (4.7) 18.1 E (5.2)Non-university postsecondary 10.1 E (2.1) 24.7 E (4.3) 41.0 (5.5) 24.3 E (4.5)University 6.0 E (1.0) 18.1 (2.2) 45.0 (3.2) 30.9 (3.4)


314

D5


Table D.5.4

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, by educational attainment, Canada and jurisdictions, population aged 16 and over,2003 (concluded)

Prose proficiency



ManitobaTotal education 18.2 (1.2) 28.1 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 16.5 (1.3)High school not completed 39.0 (2.3) 36.4 (3.2) 21.3 (3.0) 3.3 E (0.8)High school 13.7 (2.3) 27.6 (3.0) 42.5 (2.7) 16.3 (2.6)Trade-vocational F ... 31.5 (4.6) 43.3 (5.9) 18.2 E (5.8)Non-university postsecondary F ... 21.6 E (5.2) 45.2 (5.6) 24.1 E (5.6)University F ... 17.2 E (3.5) 44.8 (5.2) 33.5 (5.1)

SaskatchewanTotal education 13.5 (1.4) 26.6 (2.1) 38.9 (2.4) 21.0 (2.3)High school not completed 32.6 (3.7) 39.5 (4.0) 23.9 E (5.1) F ...High school 10.3 E (2.9) 26.0 (4.1) 42.6 (5.4) 21.1 E (5.2)Trade-vocational F ... F ... 48.2 E (9.9) 19.9 E (5.5)Non-university postsecondary F ... F ... 48.9 E (11.2) 26.1 E (8.3)University F ... 12.1 E (3.7) 42.0 E (7.5) 44.6 (7.4)

AlbertaTotal education 13.6 (1.1) 25.9 (2.0) 39.6 (2.2) 21.0 (1.6)High school not completed 35.7 (3.9) 32.8 (4.3) 24.9 (2.7) F ...High school 7.8 E (2.1) 31.8 (3.6) 43.9 (2.8) 16.5 (2.6)Trade-vocational F ... 30.0 E (6.4) 46.4 (5.1) 16.7 E (4.5)Non-university postsecondary 7.8 E (2.0) 20.9 E (5.7) 48.7 (6.6) 22.6 (3.4)University F ... 12.6 E (3.6) 42.0 (4.2) 42.4 (4.2)

British ColumbiaTotal education 17.3 (0.8) 22.7 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 22.9 (1.7)High school not completed 39.5 (3.0) 30.0 (2.9) 24.4 (2.8) 6.2 E (1.7)High school 15.2 (2.2) 24.2 (3.6) 41.5 (2.2) 19.1 (1.7)Trade-vocational 6.7 E (1.8) 24.1 E (5.7) 48.2 (6.5) 21.0 E (5.2)Non-university postsecondary 8.6 E (1.9) 22.2 (3.5) 39.4 E (8.7) 29.8 E (7.0)University 6.1 E (1.3) 12.4 E (2.6) 38.5 (3.9) 42.9 (4.5)

YukonTotal education 10.5 (1.5) 22.9 (1.9) 39.3 (3.4) 27.3 (2.7)High school not completed 30.2 (5.0) 37.9 (5.1) 26.2 (4.0) F ...High school F ... 25.3 (3.1) 47.4 (5.8) 21.5 E (4.7)Trade-vocational F ... 23.4 E (5.4) 39.3 E (7.7) 30.7 E (6.1)Non-university postsecondary F ... F ... 42.3 E (8.2) 30.8 E (8.6)University x ... F ... 39.3 E (7.0) 49.7 (6.6)

Northwest TerritoriesTotal education 19.3 (1.9) 25.8 (1.7) 35.1 (2.7) 19.8 (1.8)High school not completed 45.0 (4.2) 30.5 (3.4) 22.4 E (4.3) F ...High school 11.1 E (3.1) 28.8 E (4.9) 38.4 (5.5) 21.8 E (4.9)Trade-vocational F ... 33.2 E (7.3) 38.6 E (8.0) 13.9 E (4.2)Non-university postsecondary x ... 27.6 E (6.7) 44.6 (7.1) 23.4 E (6.7)University x ... 9.6 E (3.1) 42.7 (5.3) 45.2 (5.2)

NunavutTotal education 47.2 (1.9) 25.8 (2.2) 19.5 (2.6) 7.5 E (1.3)High school not completed 68.9 (3.4) 23.1 (2.0) F ... x ...High school F ... 39.3 E (7.3) 36.8 E (6.8) F ...Trade-vocational 38.9 E (8.4) 29.4 E (8.1) F ... x ...Non-university postsecondary F ... F ... F ... x ...University x ... F ... 44.0 E (7.7) 36.3 E (8.3)


315

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.5

Employment rate, by literacy level for document proficiency, Canada and jurisdictions,population aged 16 to 65, 2003

Total employment rate

percentage Standard error

Canada 72.6 (0.6)

Newfoundland and Labrador 58.7 (1.6)Prince Edward Island 66.9 (2.2)Nova Scotia 64.3 (1.6)New Brunswick 66.9 (1.6)Quebec 70.0 (0.7)Ontario 74.5 (1.4)Manitoba 78.6 (1.1)Saskatchewan 73.6 (1.8)Alberta 78.7 (1.3)British Columbia 70.6 (1.4)Yukon 77.4 (1.7)Northwest Territories 76.9 (2.1)Nunavut 58.6 (2.0)

Employment rate bydocument proficiency


Level 1

Canada 57.0 (2.1)

Newfoundland and Labrador 37.0 (4.4)Prince Edward Island 60.7 (6.0)Nova Scotia 49.7 (5.8)New Brunswick 51.0 (4.9)Quebec 53.8 (3.3)Ontario 61.5 (4.0)Manitoba 61.2 (3.8)Saskatchewan 56.6 E (11.0)Alberta 69.3 (5.9)British Columbia 46.5 (4.9)Yukon 54.1 (6.8)Northwest Territories 59.3 (6.1)Nunavut 42.8 (3.4)

Level 2

Canada 70.2 (1.5)



316

D5


Table D.5.5

Employment rate, by literacy level for document proficiency, Canada and jurisdictions,population aged 16 to 65, 2003 (concluded)

Employment rate bydocument proficiency


Level 3

Canada 76.4 (1.1)


Level 4/5

Canada 81.0 (1.2)Newfoundland and Labrador 76.5 (5.5)Prince Edward Island 78.1 (4.4)Nova Scotia 75.6 (4.8)New Brunswick 76.2 (6.8)Quebec 81.0 (1.9)Ontario 81.9 (3.0)Manitoba 85.4 (3.9)Saskatchewan 78.9 (5.5)Alberta 80.7 (2.8)British Columbia 80.5 (3.4)Yukon 84.5 (3.4)Northwest Territories 90.1 (3.5)Nunavut 90.1 (3.9)


317

Chapter D tables D5


Table D.5.6

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, Aboriginal (urban) and non-Aboriginal (urban and rural) populations aged 16 and overin Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 2003



Canada 19.9 (0.5) 27.8 (0.7) 35.4 (0.8) 17.0 (0.7)

ManitobaAboriginal (urban) 26.7 (2.6) 34.4 (3.1) 29.4 (2.6) 9.4 (1.4)Non-Aboriginal (urban and rural) 17.5 (1.3) 27.6 (1.9) 37.8 (2.4) 17.1 (1.4)

Total 18.2 (1.2) 28.1 (1.7) 37.2 (2.1) 16.5 (1.3)

SaskatchewanAboriginal (urban) 26.5 (2.6) 36.9 (2.7) 27.8 (2.5) 8.9 (1.4)Non-Aboriginal (urban and rural) 13.2 (1.5) 25.5 (2.2) 39.3 (2.4) 21.9 (2.4)

Total 13.5 (1.4) 26.6 (2.1) 38.9 (2.4) 21.0 (2.3)

Note: Both Manitoba and Saskatchewan opted to increase the IALSS sample size in their provinces to allow creation of estimates for the relatively largeurban Aboriginal populations.


Table D.5.7

Literacy levels for prose proficiency, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations aged 16 and over in Yukon,Northwest Territories and Nunavut, 2003



Canada 19.9 (0.5) 27.8 (0.7) 35.4 (0.8) 17.0 (0.7)

YukonAboriginal 26.5 E (4.5) 28.3 E (4.9) 32.2 (4.7) F ...Non-Aboriginal 7.2 E (1.6) 21.9 (2.1) 40.7 (4.0) 30.2 (3.2)

Total 10.5 (1.5) 22.9 (1.9) 39.3 (3.4) 27.3 (2.7)

Northwest TerritoriesAboriginal 36.9 (3.5) 32.0 (2.5) 25.5 (3.4) 5.6 E (1.5)Non-Aboriginal 8.0 E (2.1) 21.8 (2.4) 41.3 (3.0) 28.9 (2.4)

Total 19.3 (1.9) 25.8 (1.7) 35.1 (2.7) 19.8 (1.8)

NunavutInuit 61.5 (2.3) 26.8 (2.3) 10.4 E (2.5) 1.3 E (0.4)Non-Inuit F ... 22.8 E (4.8) 46.3 (5.7) 25.2 E (4.8)

Total 47.2 (1.9) 25.8 (2.2) 19.5 (2.6) 7.5 E (1.3)

Note: The three territories opted to increase their IALSS sample sizes to allow creation of estimates for the relatively large Aboriginal population in theNorthwest Territories and the Yukon, as well as the large Inuit population in Nunavut.


319

D6Chapter D tables


Table D.6.1

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64, OECD countries, Canada and jurisdictions, 2004

Less than College orcollege1 College2 University3 university Total

percentageOECD countriesAustralia 69 9 22 31 100Austria 82 9 9 18 100Belgium 70 15 14 30 100

Canada4 55 22 22 45 100

Czech Republic5 88 .. .. 12 100Denmark 68 7 25 32 100Finland 66 17 17 34 100France 76 10 14 24 100Germany 75 10 15 25 100Greece 79 6 15 21 100Hungary5 83 .. .. 17 100Iceland 72 4 24 28 100Ireland 72 10 18 28 100Italy5 89 .. .. 11 100Japan6 63 17 21 37 100Korea 70 8 22 30 100Luxembourg 77 9 13 23 100Mexico 84 2 14 16 100Netherlands 71 2 27 29 100New Zealand 75 8 18 25 100Norway 68 2 29 32 100Poland5 84 .. .. 16 100Portugal5 87 .. .. 13 100Slovak republic 88 1 12 12 100Spain 74 7 19 26 100Sweden 65 15 19 35 100Switzerland 72 10 18 28 100Turkey5 91 .. .. 9 100United Kingdom 74 8 18 26 100United States 61 9 30 39 100

OECD average5 75 .. .. 25 100

JurisdictionsNewfoundland and Labrador 72 16 13 29 100Prince Edward Island 54 29 17 46 100Nova Scotia 58 22 20 42 100New Brunswick 61 24 16 40 100Quebec 58 21 21 42 100Ontario 50 25 25 51 100Manitoba 60 21 20 40 100Saskatchewan 67 16 18 34 100Alberta 60 20 20 40 100British Columbia 57 21 22 43 100Yukon 40 41 19 61 100Northwest Territories 46 35 19 54 100Nunavut 63 24 13 37 100

1. In Canada, this is equivalent to: no education or education below high school graduation; high school graduation or some postsecondary education(not completed); trade certificate or diploma from a vocational school or apprenticeship training.

2. Tertiary-Type-B education. In Canada, this is equivalent to: non-university certificate or diploma from a community college, CEGEP, school of nursingand similar programs at this level; university certificate below bachelor’s level.

3. Tertiary-Type-A education and advanced research programs. In Canada, this is equivalent to: Bachelor’s degree;university degree or certificate above bachelor’s degree.

4. The data source (Labour Force Survey) does not allow for a clear delineation between“postsecondary non-tertiary education” and “tertiary-type B education”. As a result, the figure reported forCollege (Tertiary-type B) is inflated.

5. Disaggregation of attainment at tertiary level not available; see OECD data source for more information.6. Year of reference 2003.Sources: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2006 (Table A1.3a).

Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Tables D6


320

D6


Table D.6.2

Distribution1 of the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by level of educational attainment and age group,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 2001

Age group

1996 2001

Total Total25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 25 to 64 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 25 to 64


Less than high school3 41 41 48 70 45 34 36 40 57 39High school4 26 22 17 10 21 28 23 20 13 23Trades5 13 16 15 11 14 14 17 17 14 16College6 15 15 12 6 13 16 17 14 9 15University7 5 7 8 4 6 8 7 9 6 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 135,900 107,705 65,260 37,615 346,485 148,545 145,855 96,370 52,830 443,600

Canada, North American IndianLess than high school3 42 41 49 71 46 37 38 42 59 41High school4 26 21 17 9 21 28 22 19 13 23Trades5 13 15 15 10 14 13 16 16 14 15College6 14 14 12 6 13 15 16 14 8 14University7 5 7 7 4 6 7 8 9 6 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Canada, MétisLess than high school3 35 38 46 66 42 27 31 36 54 34High school4 28 22 17 11 22 29 24 20 14 24Trades5 15 17 16 12 15 15 19 19 15 17College6 16 16 13 7 14 19 19 15 10 17University7 7 7 8 4 7 9 8 10 7 9Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Canada, InuitLess than high school3 49 47 61 80 54 43 44 51 74 48High school4 22 18 10 5 17 26 20 16 8 20Trades5 13 17 16 10 14 13 17 17 11 15College6 14 15 10 4 12 14 15 11 5 13University7 2 3 2 1 2 4 4 5 2 4Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Jurisdictions, totalAboriginal identity2

Newfoundland and LabradorLess than high school3 33 39 52 73 43 25 32 42 60 36High school4 19 17 9 8 15 21 16 13 11 16Trades5 24 27 28 13 24 26 26 26 17 25College6 17 13 8 3 13 19 19 11 8 16University7 7 4 3 4 5 8 6 8 4 7Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 2,530 2,085 1,190 800 6,605 2,920 3,000 2,285 1,055 9,250

Prince Edward IslandLess than high school3 34 52 45 50 42 33 27 22 67 34High school4 16 13 0 0 13 27 9 17 11 16Trades5 13 6 18 50 12 13 39 28 0 24College6 29 16 0 0 20 17 18 25 11 19University7 8 13 36 0 12 10 6 8 11 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 195 145 70 35 445 155 165 185 80 585

321

D6Chapter D tables


Table D.6.2

Distribution1 of the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by level of educational attainment and age group,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 2001 (continued)

Age group

1996 2001


percentage percentageNova ScotiaLess than high school3 29 31 34 56 34 27 29 35 45 32High school4 28 20 18 14 22 26 19 18 15 20Trades5 18 24 22 18 20 17 26 20 24 21College6 15 16 13 6 14 18 16 15 10 16University7 10 10 13 7 10 12 10 12 7 11Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 2,175 1,750 1,035 610 5,575 2,725 2,455 1,910 835 7,930

New BrunswickLess than high school3 23 27 40 58 31 26 33 38 56 35High school4 31 28 15 11 25 31 23 19 12 23Trades5 21 18 21 15 20 16 19 21 17 18College6 17 17 11 11 15 18 19 13 6 16University7 8 11 13 5 9 9 6 9 10 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 1,795 1,480 785 470 4,525 2,650 2,840 1,940 1,085 8,520

QuebecLess than high school3 48 46 49 72 50 42 41 43 61 45High school4 23 22 19 12 20 23 21 23 16 22Trades5 13 15 13 8 13 14 16 14 10 14College6 11 9 10 3 9 13 13 11 6 11University7 6 9 9 6 7 7 8 10 8 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


OntarioLess than high school3 34 36 45 65 40 27 30 36 54 34High school4 29 24 18 11 23 29 25 22 15 24Trades5 12 15 14 11 13 14 16 16 14 15College6 19 17 14 8 16 21 21 17 11 19University7 6 8 8 5 7 9 8 9 6 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


ManitobaLess than high school3 50 50 57 79 54 42 44 48 67 47High school4 23 18 14 6 18 27 21 16 8 21Trades5 10 13 12 8 11 12 15 14 11 13College6 12 12 11 5 11 13 14 12 7 12University7 4 7 7 2 5 6 7 10 7 7Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


SaskatchewanLess than high school3 44 43 52 73 48 37 39 45 61 42High school4 25 19 15 9 20 29 22 18 11 22Trades5 13 16 15 9 14 14 16 15 14 15College6 11 12 9 5 10 13 14 11 7 12University7 7 10 10 4 8 8 10 11 7 9Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100



322

D6


Table D.6.2

Distribution1 of the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by level of educational attainment and age group,Canada and jurisdictions, 1996 and 2001 (concluded)

Age group

1996 2001


percentage percentageAlbertaLess than high school3 38 37 47 69 43 35 35 37 57 38High school4 29 23 17 9 23 29 23 21 14 24Trades5 13 17 18 12 15 14 19 18 16 17College6 15 17 12 7 14 15 16 14 10 15University7 5 6 6 3 5 7 6 10 4 7Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


British ColumbiaLess than high school3 38 38 43 64 42 31 32 36 50 35High school4 29 23 20 12 24 31 25 20 15 25Trades5 14 16 16 13 15 14 17 18 16 16College6 15 16 14 7 14 16 18 17 12 17University7 5 6 6 4 5 8 8 8 7 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


YukonLess than high school3 27 27 39 61 33 25 24 27 49 29High school4 25 21 16 8 21 29 23 20 14 23Trades5 18 19 24 19 20 19 20 24 21 21College6 24 24 16 8 21 19 25 20 10 20University7 6 9 5 3 6 7 7 9 6 7Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 1,250 940 550 295 3,035 900 1,230 665 405 3,200

Northwest TerritoriesLess than high school3 42 41 52 79 48 41 41 41 67 44High school4 22 18 11 5 17 25 18 17 9 19Trades5 16 18 18 9 16 15 19 19 15 17College6 17 19 14 6 16 16 17 17 6 15University7 2 4 4 1 3 3 5 7 4 5Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


NunavutLess than high school3 48 45 67 83 54 45 43 51 78 49High school4 23 18 9 4 17 27 19 14 6 20Trades5 13 18 15 9 14 11 17 16 11 14College6 15 17 8 3 13 15 17 15 4 15University7 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 4 1 2Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100




3. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.4. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).5. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.6. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEP, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.7. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).Source: 1996 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

323

D6Chapter D tables


Table D.6.3

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64, off-reserve Aboriginal population1 fromWestern Canada,2 2004

Less than College orcollege3 College4 University5 university Total

percentage

Western Canada 75.6 14.9 9.6 24.4 100.0Manitoba 71.9 17.6 10.3 27.9 100.0Saskatchewan 80.6 8.7 10.4* 19.1 100.0Alberta 74.3 16.0 9.7 25.7 100.0British Columbia 76.6 15.1 8.4* 23.6 100.0

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%.1. Aboriginal population refers to those persons who reported identifying with at least one Aboriginal group, i.e., North American Indian, Métis or Inuit.2. Includes Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.3. Includes no education or education below high school graduation; high school graduation or some postsecondary education (not completed); trade

certificate or diploma from a vocational school or apprenticeship training.4. Includes non-university certificate or diploma from a community college, CEGEP, school of nursing and similar programs at this level; university

certificate below bachelor’s level.5. Includes bachelor’s degree; university degree or certificate above bachelor’s degree.Notes: Because the Labour Force Survey questions on Aboriginal self-identification in all four jurisdictions were added in April 2004, the data are based on

a nine-month average from April to December 2004.Data in this table allow comparisons across the off-reserve Aboriginal population from Western Canada but are not directly comparable withLabour Force Survey-based data for the general population and Census-based data for the Aboriginal population.

Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Table D.6.4

Distribution1 of the population aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment and age group, Canada and jurisdictions,1996 and 2001

Age group

1996 2001


percentage percentageCanadaLess than high school2 19 22 29 47 27 15 20 23 38 23High school3 27 27 23 18 24 24 25 25 20 24Trades4 12 13 13 12 13 12 14 13 12 13College5 20 18 15 10 17 21 20 17 12 18University6 22 20 20 13 19 28 22 22 17 23Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 4,481,315 4,843,030 3,697,970 2,477,815 15,500,130 3,973,085 5,074,090 4,393,180 2,847,955 16,288,310

Newfoundland andLabradorLess than high school2 27 34 44 62 39 22 30 39 54 35High school3 19 17 14 13 16 19 16 15 13 16Trades4 23 24 19 12 20 22 25 22 14 21College5 16 14 10 6 12 19 16 11 8 14University6 15 11 13 7 12 18 13 14 11 14Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Prince Edward IslandLess than high school2 27 30 36 50 34 20 25 30 45 29High school3 22 21 17 14 19 23 22 20 15 20Trades4 16 15 14 12 15 14 18 16 13 16College5 19 18 15 13 17 23 20 16 12 18University6 16 15 17 11 15 20 16 18 14 17Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100



324

D6


Table D.6.4

Distribution1 of the population aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment and age group, Canada and jurisdictions,1996 and 2001 (continued)

Age group

1996 2001


percentage percentageNova ScotiaLess than high school2 21 26 34 51 31 16 23 28 43 26High school3 21 20 16 13 18 21 19 18 14 18Trades4 18 18 18 14 17 16 19 18 15 17College5 19 17 15 11 16 21 19 16 14 18University6 20 19 18 12 18 25 20 20 15 20Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


New BrunswickLess than high school2 22 29 37 54 33 18 26 32 46 29High school3 29 27 19 14 24 28 27 23 16 24Trades4 13 14 15 11 14 13 14 15 13 14College5 19 16 13 10 15 21 18 15 12 17University6 17 14 15 10 15 21 15 16 13 16Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


QuebecLess than high school2 19 24 31 51 29 16 21 25 40 24High school3 25 29 27 22 26 20 26 29 25 25Trades4 13 12 11 8 11 14 13 12 10 13College5 20 16 11 7 14 22 18 14 8 16University6 22 19 19 12 19 27 21 20 17 22Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 1,086,645 1,234,365 972,150 647,560 3,940,720 916,635 1,236,445 1,102,190 753,400 4,008,675

OntarioLess than high school2 16 20 27 45 25 13 17 22 36 21High school3 28 27 23 18 25 26 26 25 20 24Trades4 10 11 12 12 11 9 12 11 12 11College5 22 20 17 12 18 22 21 18 14 19University6 24 22 22 13 21 31 24 24 18 25Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 1,710,495 1,772,915 1,364,080 935,530 5,783,030 1,550,105 1,949,840 1,626,720 1,057,985 6,184,650

ManitobaLess than high school2 25 28 33 51 32 21 26 29 42 28High school3 27 24 19 14 22 27 24 21 16 22Trades4 12 13 13 12 12 12 14 13 13 13College5 17 17 15 11 16 18 18 16 13 16University6 19 18 19 12 18 22 19 21 16 20Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


SaskatchewanLess than high school2 26 27 33 53 32 21 26 28 43 28High school3 25 24 19 13 22 25 24 21 15 22Trades4 15 16 15 12 15 16 17 16 14 16College5 17 16 14 9 15 17 17 15 12 16University6 17 17 20 12 17 20 17 20 16 18Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


325

D6Chapter D tables


Table D.6.4

Distribution1 of the population aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment and age group, Canada and jurisdictions,1996 and 2001 (concluded)

Age group

1996 2001


percentage percentageAlbertaLess than high school2 20 21 26 45 25 17 20 21 35 22High school3 27 25 20 16 23 25 24 22 17 23Trades4 14 16 16 14 15 13 16 16 16 15College5 20 19 17 12 18 20 20 18 15 19University6 19 19 22 13 19 24 20 23 18 21Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 434,925 478,260 318,675 201,835 1,433,695 427,850 515,670 418,820 240,010 1,602,355

British ColumbiaLess than high school2 18 20 23 39 23 14 18 19 30 19High school3 28 27 23 18 25 27 25 24 20 24Trades4 13 14 15 15 14 12 14 14 15 14College5 20 19 18 13 18 19 20 19 16 19University6 22 20 22 14 20 28 23 24 20 24Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Population (number) 580,685 632,245 489,155 320,300 2,022,385 515,725 653,345 597,045 377,935 2,144,050

YukonLess than high school2 18 16 21 41 21 15 15 14 27 17High school3 26 20 18 15 21 26 20 21 17 21Trades4 15 19 19 17 18 15 19 18 20 18College5 21 24 20 16 21 21 22 21 17 21University6 20 21 21 12 20 23 23 26 19 23Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Northwest TerritoriesLess than high school2 25 22 29 53 27 23 24 22 41 25High school3 23 21 15 10 19 24 19 19 13 20Trades4 16 18 17 13 16 15 18 19 16 17College5 20 21 17 11 19 19 20 18 11 18University6 17 19 22 13 18 19 19 22 19 19Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


NunavutLess than high school2 38 31 49 70 41 36 34 35 62 38High school3 22 18 11 7 17 26 20 17 8 20Trades4 13 18 17 11 15 11 16 15 11 13College5 17 19 11 5 15 17 19 18 8 17University6 10 14 12 7 11 11 11 16 11 12Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100



2. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.3. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).4. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.5. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEP, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.6. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).Source: 1996 and 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.


326

D6


Table D.6.5

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by sex, Canada,1996 and 2001

Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001

number percentage percentage distributionTotal Aboriginal identity1

Both sexesLess than high school2 156,605 171,715 10 45 39High school3 74,100 101,360 37 21 23Trades4 48,845 69,265 42 14 16College5 45,755 66,800 46 13 15University6 21,185 34,465 63 6 8All trades, college and university 115,780 170,530 47 33 38

Total population aged 25 to 64 346,485 443,605 28 100 100

MaleLess than high school2 77,190 86,500 12 47 41High school3 32,490 45,770 41 20 22Trades4 29,365 41,340 41 18 20College5 16,165 23,575 46 10 11University6 8,050 12,435 54 5 6All trades, college and university 53,580 77,350 44 33 37


FemaleLess than high school2 79,415 85,215 7 43 36High school3 41,610 55,590 34 23 24Trades4 19,480 27,925 43 11 12College5 29,585 43,225 46 16 18University6 13,130 22,030 68 7 9All trades, college and university 62,195 93,180 50 34 40


North American IndianBoth sexesLess than high school2 103,325 108,945 5 46 41High school3 47,425 60,615 28 21 23Trades4 30,305 39,810 31 14 15College5 28,865 37,935 31 13 14University6 13,420 20,095 50 6 8All trades, college and university 72,590 97,845 35 33 37






327

D6Chapter D tables


Table D.6.5

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by sex, Canada,1996 and 2001 (continued)

Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001

number percentage percentage distributionMétis

Both sexesLess than high school2 39,505 48,315 22 42 34High school3 20,990 33,650 60 22 24Trades4 14,620 24,525 68 15 17College5 13,300 23,985 80 14 17University6 6,365 12,355 94 7 9All trades, college and university 34,295 60,865 77 36 43






Inuit

Both sexesLess than high school2 8,110 8,610 6 54 48High school3 2,600 3,635 40 17 20Trades4 2,165 2,725 26 14 15College5 1,850 2,325 26 12 13University6 360 650 81 2 4All trades, college and university 4,380 5,700 30 29 32


MaleLess than high school2 3,765 4,100 9 51 47High school3 1,160 1,700 47 16 20Trades4 1,515 1,675 11 20 19College5 830 985 19 11 11University6 140 200 43 2 2All trades, college and university 2,490 2,860 15 34 33



328

D6


Table D.6.5

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64 with Aboriginal identity, by sex, Canada,1996 and 2001 (concluded)

Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001

number percentage percentage distributionFemaleLess than high school2 4,350 4,505 4 57 49High school3 1,435 1,930 34 19 21Trades4 650 1,055 62 8 11College5 1,020 1,345 32 13 14University6 220 450 105 3 5All trades, college and university 1,890 2,845 51 25 31



2. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.3. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).4. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.5. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEP, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.6. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).Note: To ensure the confidentiality of responses collected for the Census, a random rounding process is used to alter the values reported in individual cells.

As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals areindependently and randomly rounded. However, apart from discrepancies due to simple rounding, the percentages are calculated to add up to 100%,as recommended by Census methodology.


Table D.6.6

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64, by sex, Canada, 1996 and 2001

Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001

number percentage percentage distributionCanada

Both sexesLess than high school1 4,149,285 3,698,230 -11 27 23High school2 3,784,020 3,898,405 3 24 24Trades3 1,952,690 2,097,150 7 13 13College4 2,605,335 2,917,900 12 17 18University5 3,008,795 3,676,630 22 19 23All trades, college and university 7,566,820 8,691,680 15 49 53

Total population aged 25 to 64 15,500,125 16,288,310 5 100 100

MaleLess than high school1 2,073,490 1,874,780 -10 27 23High school2 1,707,600 1,796,465 5 22 22Trades3 1,255,705 1,323,705 5 16 17College4 1,076,035 1,201,220 12 14 15University5 1,536,980 1,804,235 17 20 23All trades, college and university 3,868,720 4,329,160 12 51 54


FemaleLess than high school1 2,075,790 1,823,450 -12 26 22High school2 2,076,435 2,101,935 1 26 25Trades3 696,990 773,440 11 9 9College4 1,529,295 1,716,680 12 19 21University5 1,471,810 1,872,390 27 19 23All trades, college and university 3,698,095 4,362,510 18 47 53


329

D6Chapter D tables



Both sexesLess than high school1 113,370 100,475 -11 39 35High school2 47,680 45,425 -5 16 16Trades3 60,155 61,540 2 20 21College4 36,590 39,450 8 12 14University5 36,195 39,970 10 12 14All trades, college and university 132,940 140,960 6 45 49

Total population aged 25 to 64 293,985 286,855 -2 100 100

MaleLess than high school1 54,910 48,015 -13 38 34High school2 22,375 21,195 -5 15 15Trades3 34,320 34,580 1 24 25College4 15,560 16,775 8 11 12University5 18,020 18,765 4 12 13All trades, college and university 67,900 70,120 3 47 50


FemaleLess than high school1 58,455 52,450 -10 39 36High school2 25,300 24,240 -4 17 16Trades3 25,830 26,960 4 17 18College4 21,030 22,680 8 14 15University5 18,180 21,200 17 12 14All trades, college and university 65,040 70,840 9 44 48



Both sexesLess than high school1 23,320 20,460 -12 34 29High school2 13,000 14,325 10 19 20Trades3 10,095 11,040 9 15 16College4 11,520 12,950 12 17 18University5 10,390 11,925 15 15 17All trades, college and university 32,005 35,915 12 47 51


MaleLess than high school1 13,120 11,580 -12 38 33High school2 6,080 6,705 10 18 19Trades3 6,235 6,610 6 18 19College4 3,915 4,350 11 11 13University5 4,790 5,350 12 14 15All trades, college and university 14,940 16,310 9 44 47


FemaleLess than high school1 10,190 8,885 -13 30 25High school2 6,925 7,620 10 20 21Trades3 3,865 4,435 15 11 12College4 7,610 8,600 13 22 24University5 5,610 6,580 17 16 18All trades, college and university 17,085 19,615 15 50 54


Table D.6.6

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64, by sex, Canada, 1996 and 2001 (continued)

Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001

number percentage percentage distribution


330

D6


Nova Scotia







New Brunswick







Table D.6.6


Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001


331

D6Chapter D tables


Quebec

Both sexesLess than high school1 1,137,355 979,965 -14 29 24High school2 1,035,790 1,018,720 -2 26 25Trades3 452,155 505,655 12 11 13College4 569,495 637,890 12 14 16University5 745,935 866,455 16 19 22All trades, college and university 1,767,585 2,010,000 14 45 50


MaleLess than high school1 564,260 498,700 -12 29 25High school2 469,630 470,725 0 24 24Trades3 275,140 298,470 8 14 15College4 254,665 283,635 11 13 14University5 381,695 424,460 11 20 21All trades, college and university 911,500 1,006,565 10 47 51


FemaleLess than high school1 573,095 481,260 -16 29 24High school2 566,160 547,990 -3 28 27Trades3 177,015 207,185 17 9 10College4 314,825 354,255 13 16 17University5 364,230 441,995 21 18 22All trades, college and university 856,070 1,003,435 17 43 49


Ontario

Both sexesLess than high school1 1,428,515 1,274,225 -11 25 21High school2 1,433,980 1,509,585 5 25 24Trades3 645,285 677,755 5 11 11College4 1,062,780 1,194,425 12 18 19University5 1,212,475 1,528,665 26 21 25All trades, college and university 2,920,540 3,400,845 16 51 55


MaleLess than high school1 701,745 633,470 -10 25 21High school2 644,065 694,030 8 23 23Trades3 420,205 435,970 4 15 14College4 439,550 492,450 12 16 16University5 626,900 764,100 22 22 25All trades, college and university 1,486,655 1,692,520 14 52 56


FemaleLess than high school1 726,775 640,755 -12 25 20High school2 789,915 815,550 3 27 26Trades3 225,080 241,780 7 8 8College4 623,225 701,975 13 21 22University5 585,575 764,575 31 20 24All trades, college and university 1,433,880 1,708,330 19 49 54


Table D.6.6


Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001



332

D6


Manitoba







Saskatchewan





FemaleLess than high school1 71,090 60,890 -14 30 25High school2 53,055 52,785 -1 22 22Trades3 26,560 30,445 15 11 13College4 45,270 49,385 9 19 21University5 41,125 47,065 14 17 20All trades, college and university 112,955 126,895 12 48 53


Table D.6.6


Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001


333

D6Chapter D tables


Alberta







British Columbia

Both sexesLess than high school1 462,430 416,245 -10 23 19High school2 504,980 518,150 3 25 24Trades3 287,010 295,180 3 14 14College4 364,380 401,755 10 18 19University5 403,580 512,715 27 20 24All trades, college and university 1,054,970 1,209,650 15 52 56






Table D.6.6


Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001



334

D6


Yukon

Both sexesLess than high school1 3,695 2,795 -24 21 17High school2 3,685 3,615 -2 21 21Trades3 3,160 3,045 -4 18 18College4 3,745 3,510 -6 21 21University5 3,570 3,960 11 20 23All trades, college and university 10,475 10,515 0 59 62


MaleLess than high school1 2,150 1,620 -25 23 19High school2 1,580 1,600 1 17 19Trades3 2,225 2,020 -9 24 24College4 1,575 1,370 -13 17 16University5 1,625 1,785 10 18 21All trades, college and university 5,425 5,175 -5 59 62


FemaleLess than high school1 1,535 1,180 -23 18 14High school2 2,115 2,020 -4 24 24Trades3 940 1,020 9 11 12College4 2,175 2,145 -1 25 25University5 1,945 2,175 12 22 25All trades, college and university 5,060 5,340 6 58 63



Both sexesLess than high school1 5,615 4,975 -11 27 25High school2 4,035 3,995 -1 19 20Trades3 3,395 3,380 0 16 17College4 3,910 3,600 -8 19 18University5 3,770 3,845 2 18 19All trades, college and university 11,075 10,825 -2 53 55


MaleLess than high school1 2,950 2,650 -10 28 26High school2 1,835 1,825 -1 17 18Trades3 2,440 2,350 -4 23 23College4 1,635 1,515 -7 15 15University5 1,865 1,800 -3 17 18All trades, college and university 5,940 5,665 -5 55 56


FemaleLess than high school1 2,660 2,325 -13 27 24High school2 2,200 2,170 -1 22 22Trades3 955 1,035 8 10 11College4 2,270 2,085 -8 23 22University5 1,900 2,040 7 19 21All trades, college and university 5,125 5,160 1 51 53


Table D.6.6


Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001


335

D6Chapter D tables


Table D.6.6

Level of educational attainment in the population aged 25 to 64, by sex, Canada, 1996 and 2001 (concluded)

Change 19961996 2001 to 2001 1996 2001

number percentage percentage distributionNunavutBoth sexesLess than high school1 4,260 4,355 2 41 38High school2 1,795 2,295 28 17 20Trades3 1,535 1,500 -2 15 13College4 1,555 1,915 23 15 17University5 1,145 1,350 18 11 12All trades, college and university 4,235 4,765 13 41 42


MaleLess than high school1 2,055 2,110 3 38 36High school2 945 1,185 25 17 20Trades3 1,180 1,015 -14 22 17College4 735 885 20 13 15University5 555 670 21 10 11All trades, college and university 2,470 2,570 4 45 44


FemaleLess than high school1 2,210 2,245 2 46 40High school2 850 1,110 31 18 20Trades3 355 475 34 7 9College4 820 1,030 26 17 19University5 590 685 16 12 12All trades, college and university 1,765 2,190 24 37 39


1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.4. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEP, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.5. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).Note: To ensure the confidentiality of responses collected for the Census, a random rounding process is used to alter the values reported in individual cells.

As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the total value may not match the sum of the individual values, since the total and subtotals areindependently and randomly rounded. However, apart from discrepancies due to simple rounding, the percentages are calculated to add up to 100%,as recommended by Census methodology.


Tables E

337

Chapter E tables

Table E.1.1Participation rate in education, by educationlevel and age, Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006 339

Table E.1.2Participation rate in education, by educationlevel and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 339

Table E.1.3Comparison of high school education status oftwo cohorts of 19-year-olds by sex, Canada andprovinces, 1999 and 2003 343

Table E.1.4Postsecondary education status of 22- to24-year-olds who were no longer in high school,by sex, Canada and provinces, December 2003 344

Table E.1.5Percentage of 18- to 20-year-old high schooldropouts in 1999 who had graduated from highschool, had some postsecondary education orgraduated from a postsecondary education programby December 2003, by sex, Canada and provinces 345

Table E.2.1Proportion of students who were also working,by education level and age, Canada, 1995/1996and 2005/2006 347

Table E.2.2Proportion of students who were also working,by education level and age group, Canada andprovinces, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006 348

Table E.2.3Distribution of the population aged 15 to 29,by education level, labour force status and age,Canada, 2005/2006 351

Table E.2.4Distribution of the population aged 15 to 29,by education level, labour force status and agegroup, Canada and provinces, 2005/2006 352

Table E.2.5Percentage of 1995 and 2000 graduates workingfull-time, two and five years after graduation,by level of education and province of study 355

Table E.2.6Percentage of 1995 and 2000 universitygraduates working full-time, two and five yearsafter graduation, by sex and field of study,Canada 356

Table E.2.7Percentage of 1995 and 2000 college graduatesworking full-time, two and five years aftergraduation, by sex and field of study, Canada 357

Table E.2.8Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000graduates working full-time, two and five yearsafter graduation, by level of education and provinceof study 358

Table E.2.9Distribution of annual earnings of 2000graduates working full-time, two and five yearsafter graduation, by sex, level of education andprovince of study 359

Table E.2.10Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000college graduates working full-time, two and fiveyears after graduation, by sex and field of study 361

Table E.2.11Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000university graduates working full-time, two andfive years after graduation, by sex and field of study 362

Table E.2.12Migration characteristics of 1995 graduates inthe period before enrolling and two years aftergraduation, Canada and jurisdictions 363


338

E1


Table E.2.13Migration characteristics of 2000 graduates inthe period before enrolling and two years aftergraduation, Canada and jurisdictions 364

Table E.3.1Unemployment rates of population aged 15 and over,by level of education, Canada, 1990 to 2006 365

Table E.3.2Unemployment rates of 25- to 29-year-olds,by educational attainment, Canada and provinces,1996 and 2006 366

Table E.3.3Unemployment rates of population aged 15 andover, by level of education, off-reserve Aboriginalpopulation from Western Canada, 2004 to 2006 366

Chapter E tables

Table E.3.4Distribution of earners, by educational attainmentat different earnings levels, Canada, 2000 367

Table E.3.5Relative earnings of the 25- to 64-year-oldpopulation with income from employment, by levelof educational attainment, selected OECD countries(high school and trade-vocational education = 100),2002, 2003 and 2004 367

Table E.3.6Average employment income, by age group andeducation level, Canada, 2000 367

339

E1Chapter E tables

Table E.1.1

Participation rate in education, by education level and age, Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006

Age

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

percentage

1995/1996

Primary/Secondary 97 93 72 38 13 4 2 2 1 1 1 x x 1 1University x x 2 10 21 25 26 22 15 12 8 7 5 5 4College x 2 12 20 23 18 15 11 10 7 6 5 4 3 3

Total 97 94 86 68 57 48 43 35 26 19 14 12 9 9 7

2005/2006

Primary/Secondary 95 92 77 30 10 4 2 1 1 1 x 1 x x xUniversity x x 2 19 27 29 30 27 21 18 11 9 8 6 5College 1 1 9 20 23 18 12 10 10 7 5 4 4 3 3

Total 96 93 88 69 60 52 45 39 31 26 16 14 12 10 8

Note: The participation rate is based on a monthly average from September to April.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Table E.1.2

Participation rate in education, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentageCanada

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 63 2 1College 11 12 4University 7 20 6

Total 81 34 10

2005-2006Primary/Secondary 62 2 <1College 11 11 4University 9 25 8

Total 81 38 12


1995/1996Primary/Secondary 60 x xCollege 6 14 5University 13 18 5*

Total 79 32 10

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 68 x xCollege 4* 11 2**University 13 26 6**

Total 85 37 9*

Tables E1


340

E1



1995/1996Primary/Secondary 62 x xCollege 4* 6 * 3*University 12 19 3**

Total 78 25 7

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 66 x xCollege 4* 6 * 4*University 15 23 6*

Total 84 29 10

Nova Scotia

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 69 2 * xCollege 4 6 2*University 12 19 4*

Total 85 27 7

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 67 1** xCollege 4 5 3University 13 29 8

Total 84 35 11

New Brunswick

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 61 x xCollege 5 7 3University 12 16 4*

Total 77 24 6

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 65 x xCollege 5* 6 3*University 11 26 5*

Total 82 33 8

Quebec

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 50 2 1*College 27 12 3University 3 22 8

Total 79 36 12


Total 80 39 14

Table E.1.2

Participation rate in education, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 (continued)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentage

341

E1Chapter E tables


Ontario

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 72 3 1*College 6 15 4University 7 22 5

Total 85 40 10

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 66 1 <1*College 7 13 4University 12 28 7

Total 85 42 11

Manitoba

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 61 2 * xCollege 3* 5 3*University 12 17 6

Total 76 24 9

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 63 2 * 1**College 4 8 3University 12 27 9

Total 80 36 12

Saskatchewan

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 61 1** xCollege 3 4 3*University 11 20 6

Total 74 25 9

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 65 1 * xCollege 3 5 3University 10 26 8

Total 78 32 11

Alberta


Total 76 27 9

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 60 X xCollege 8 12 4University 8 17 5

Total 75 29 10

Table E.1.2

Participation rate in education, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 (continued)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentage


342

E1


British Columbia


Total 77 29 9

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 60 1 xCollege 9 16 6University 9 21 9

Total 78 38 15

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%.** indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 25% and less than or equal to 33.3%.Note: The participation rate is based on a monthly average from September to April.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Table E.1.2

Participation rate in education, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 (concluded)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentage

343

E1Chapter E tables


Table E.1.3

Comparison of high school education status of two cohorts of 19-year-olds by sex,Canada and provinces, 1999 and 2003


Graduates Continuers Dropouts Graduates Continuers Dropouts Graduates Continuers Dropouts

percentage

1999

19-year-olds in YITSCycle 1, high school statusas of December 1999

Canada 75.3 9.8 14.8 85.7 5.2 9.1 80.4 7.6 12.0

Newfoundland and Labrador 81.8 6.8 E 11.4 E 94.3 x F 87.5 3.8 E 8.7 E

Prince Edward Island 81.0 12.1 E 6.9 E 88.0 F F 84.5 7.6 E 8.0 E

Nova Scotia 69.2 16.5 14.2 E 88.6 5.8 E 5.6 E 78.8 11.3 10.0New Brunswick 85.9 6.9 E 7.2 E 88.3 F 6.8 E 87.1 5.9 E 7.0 E

Quebec 69.2 7.7 E 23.1 86.7 4.6 E 8.7 77.7 6.2 16.1Ontario 78.8 11.4 9.8 86.2 5.5 8.3 82.4 8.5 9.0Manitoba 74.2 7.4 E 18.4 E 83.9 7.2 E 8.8 E 79.0 7.3 E 13.7Saskatchewan 77.4 8.8 E 13.8 E 91.6 3.8 E 4.6 E 84.3 6.4 E 9.3 E

Alberta 77.0 7.0 E 16.1 E 76.6 6.8 E 16.6 76.8 6.9 E 16.3British Columbia 73.9 12.0 E 14.1 E 85.4 5.2 E 9.4 E 79.6 8.6 E 11.8

2003

19-year-olds in YITSCycle 3, high school statusas of December 2003

Canada 83.9 6.6 9.6 90.6 3.8 5.6 87.2 5.2 7.6

Newfoundland and Labrador 86.2 3.7 E 10.1 93.3 1.9 E 4.8 E 89.9 2.8 E 7.3Prince Edward Island 88.3 5.3 E 6.3 E 95.0 2.4 E 2.6 E 91.8 3.8 4.4Nova Scotia 82.8 9.6 7.6 90.5 4.5 5.0 86.8 7.0 6.3New Brunswick 85.9 5.7 8.4 94.2 2.6 E 3.2 E 90.3 4.1 5.7Quebec 77.3 7.8 14.8 86.3 6 7.7 81.8 6.9 11.3Ontario 85.1 7.9 7.0 92.3 3.1 E 4.6 E 88.8 5.5 5.8Manitoba 83.6 5.2 E 11.3 88.8 3.6 E 7.6 86.1 4.4 9.5Saskatchewan 88.5 4.2 E 7.3 90.0 2.8 E 7.2 89.3 3.5 7.2Alberta 83.2 4.4 12.4 89.3 4.3 6.5 86.1 4.4 9.5British Columbia 90.7 3.4 E 5.9 93.1 2.6 E 4.3 E 91.9 3.0 5.1

Notes: Percentages in table may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Cohort A is not cross-sectionally representative of the population of 19-year-olds in2003. In this table, the province represents where the respondent lived when last in high school. For more information on the methodology for theYouth in Transition Survey, see 2007 PCEIP Handbook (Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Educationindicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).

Source: Youth in Transition Survey, Cycle 1 (for 19-year-olds in 1999) and Cycle 3 (for 19-year-olds in 2003), Statistics Canada.


344

E1


Table E.1.4

Postsecondary education status of 22- to 24-year-olds1 who were no longer in high school, by sex, Canada andprovinces,2 December 2003

High school High schoolPostsecondary Postsecondary graduates, no dropouts, no

graduate graduate Postsecondary Postsecondary postsecondary postsecondarycontinuers non-continuers continuers non-continuers education education

percentage

Canada 12.2 32.2 20.0 12.0 14.8 8.8Male 10.3 28.1 19.4 13.0 17.7 11.6Female 14.2 36.3 20.6 11.1 11.9 5.9

Newfoundland and Labrador 10.5 37.9 20.6 11.3 15.1 4.6 E

Male 8.6 E 36.8 22.9 8.8 E 18.1 4.8 E

Female 12.5 39.0 18.1 13.9 E 12.0 E F

Prince Edward Island 8.5 E 31.5 21.0 E 9.4 E 22.6 6.9 E

Male 5.9 E 30.8 19.6 E 12.4 E 22.4 8.8 E

Female 11.5 E 32.4 22.6 E 5.9 E 22.8 E F

Nova Scotia 13.6 34.8 15.0 15.6 14.2 6.8Male 10.9 E 30.3 14.7 14.9 19.3 9.9 E

Female 16.6 E 39.7 15.4 16.3 E 8.7 E F

New Brunswick 9.7 36.7 15.1 11.7 19.8 7.0 E

Male 8.0 E 30.1 17.9 11.8 E 22.9 9.3 E

Female 11.5 E 43.7 12.1 E 11.7 E 16.5 F

Quebec 21.7 33.5 11.1 12.4 9.8 11.6Male 19.0 29.6 10.4 13.1 12.4 15.5Female 24.4 37.3 11.8 11.7 7.1 7.6

Ontario 8.2 32.2 27.1 12.4 13.4 6.6Male 6.1 28.3 26.0 14.3 17.0 8.4Female 10.4 36.2 28.3 10.5 9.7 4.8 E

Manitoba 10.8 30.4 17.9 11.6 19.3 9.9Male 9.8 23.3 17.4 13.6 23.9 12.0Female 11.7 37.6 18.5 9.7 14.7 7.8 E

Saskatchewan 7.9 29.4 20.4 12.3 24.3 5.8Male 7.0 E 24.0 22.1 12.0 27.3 7.6 E

Female 8.8 35.4 18.5 12.6 E 20.9 3.8 E

Alberta 8.7 30.6 15.5 10.2 23.8 11.2Male 8.4 E 27.1 14.4 9.9 25.5 14.8 E

Female 9.1 34.3 16.7 10.5 22.1 7.4 E

British Columbia 11.4 30.1 22.6 11.5 15.1 9.4 E

Male 9.9 E 26.2 22.5 12.2 16.1 13.2 E

Female 13.0 34.2 22.7 10.7 14.1 5.3 E

1. This sample of youth is representative of Canadian youth who were 18 to 20 years of age as of December 1999. However, in 2003, they were notrepresentative of 22- to 24-year-old Canadian youth.

2. Province of interview in 2003.Notes: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. For more information on the methodology for the Youth in Transition Survey, see 2007 PCEIP

Handbook (Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of thePan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE. Ottawa.).

Source: Youth in Transition Survey, Cycle 3, Statistics Canada.

345

E1Chapter E tables


Table E.1.5

Percentage of 18- to 20-year-old high school dropouts in 1999 who had graduated fromhigh school, had some postsecondary education or graduated from a postsecondaryeducation program by December 2003, by sex, Canada and provinces1

High school dropouts

percentage

Canada 38.4Male 33.3Female 46.1

Newfoundland and Labrador 40.1 E

Male FFemale F

Prince Edward Island FMale xFemale F

Nova Scotia 51.3Male 57.0Female F

New Brunswick 30.6 E

Male FFemale F

Quebec 32.8Male 30.4Female 37.2 E

Ontario 45.3Male 37.9Female 53.7

Manitoba 26.9 E

Male 20.2 E

Female 34.9 E

Saskatchewan 31.6 E

Male 32.6 E

Female 29.7 E

Alberta 39.3Male 30.4 E

Female 52.5

British Columbia 39.2 E

Male 33.8 E

Female 48.7 E

1. Province of interview in 2003.Note: For more information on the methodology for the Youth in Transition Survey, see 2007 PCEIP Handbook

(Statistics Canada and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Education indicators in Canada:Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogue no. 81-582-XIE.Ottawa.).

Source: Youth in Transition Survey, Cycle 3, Statistics Canada.

347

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.1

Proportion of students who were also working, by education level and age, Canada, 1995/1996 and 2005/2006

Age

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

percentage1995/1996

Primary/Secondary 21 29 40 41 42 41 23 34 32 x x x x x xCollege x x 37 40 48 47 52 52 42 48 49 49 52 47 48University x x 34 33 38 39 44 48 44 48 54 61 61 62 66

Total 21 29 39 39 43 42 46 48 43 47 51 53 54 51 54

2005/2006

Primary/Secondary 20 33 46 46 43 47 42 47 39 48 x x x x xCollege x 36 50 55 57 54 53 57 55 58 62 51 56 52 51University x x 24 34 39 44 48 52 51 56 52 58 62 67 66

Total 20 33 46 46 46 48 48 53 52 55 54 55 56 59 60

Note: The participation rate is based on a monthly average from September to April.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Tables E2


348

E2


Table E.2.2

Proportion of students who were also working, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentage

Canada


Total 33 45 54


Total 37 51 57


1995/1996Primary/Secondary 12 x xCollege x 10** xUniversity 25* 30* 48*

Total 14 21* 28*

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 20 x xCollege x 19* xUniversity 32* 40 40**

Total 22 34 37*


1995/1996Primary/Secondary 35 x xCollege x 33* xUniversity 33 33 67

Total 36 33 50

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 32 x xCollege 50* 33* xUniversity 47 50 60

Total 36 46 63

Nova Scotia

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 29 43* xCollege 36* 37 43*University 33 42 57

Total 30 41 51

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 35 x xCollege 48 42 39*University 43 50 61

Total 36 48 53

349

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.2

Proportion of students who were also working, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 (continued)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentage

New Brunswick

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 27 x xCollege x 16* xUniversity 19* 28 47

Total 25 24 35

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 36 x xCollege 28* 42 42**University 35 38 48*

Total 36 38 46

Quebec

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 19 36* xCollege 39 48 54University 47 43 66

Total 27 44 60

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 24 50 xCollege 56 62 52University 35* 56 64

Total 34 57 59

Ontario

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 34 32 36**College 49 53 50University 30 44 59

Total 35 47 54

2005-2006Primary/Secondary 35 39 xCollege 49 56 65University 34 47 62

Total 36 49 63

Manitoba

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 38 x xCollege 52 55 55University 59 56 58

Total 42 54 57

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 43 46* xCollege 56 61 48*University 59 59 67

Total 46 59 60


350

E2


Table E.2.2

Proportion of students who were also working, by education level and age group, Canada and provinces,1995/1996 and 2005/2006 (concluded)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29

percentage

Saskatchewan

1995/1996Primary/Secondary 36 x xCollege x 29* xUniversity 36 41 51

Total 35 37 43

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 41 x xCollege 32* 41 35*University 45 45 50

Total 41 44 46

Alberta


Total 40 49 50


Total 44 49 54

British Columbia


Total 35 48 48

2005/2006Primary/Secondary 35 54 xCollege 61 52 46University 34 51 51

Total 38 51 49

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%** indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 25% and less than or equal to 33.3%Note: The participation rate is based on a monthly average from September to April.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

351

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.3

Distribution of the population aged 15 to 29, by education level, labour force status and age, Canada, 2005/2006

Age

Total15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 15 to 29

percentage2005/2006

Non-student not in the labour force 2.1 2.8 2.5 4.1 5.2 5.1 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.6 9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.7 6.2Non-student unemployed 0.5 1.0 1.7 3.5 5.1 5.4 5.3 4.9 5.2 5.9 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.3Non-student employed 1.2 2.4 6.7 21.0 27.5 35.4 42.2 48.5 55.1 58.7 67.2 69.6 72.7 75.0 76.2 44.2University employed x x 0.5 6.3 10.3 12.9 14.4 14.2 10.6 10.0 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.2 3.3 6.9University not in the labour force x x 1.4 11.4 15.5 15.7 15.1 12.4 9.5 7.5 4.6 3.6 2.8 1.9 1.5 6.9College employed x 0.4 4.4 11.2 13.0 10.0 6.6 5.7 5.3 4.0 3.3 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.6 4.7College not in the labour force 0.5 0.7 3.9 8.0 8.6 7.2 5.2 3.9 4.1 2.6 1.8 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 3.5Primary/secondary employed 18.6 30.5 35.5 13.8 4.4 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 x x x x x 7.1Primary/secondary not inthe labour force 70.9 53.3 35.6 13.6 5.0 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 x 0.4 x x x 12.1Other1 5.9 8.7 7.7 7.0 5.4 4.9 4.2 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 4.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1. Includes unemployed students attending university, college, primary or secondary schools and students attending other kinds of schools.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.


352

E2


Table E.2.4

Distribution of the population aged 15 to 29, by education level, labour force status and age group, Canadaand provinces, 2005/2006

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 Total 15 to 29

percentageCanada

Non-student not in the labour force 3 6 9 6Non-student unemployed 2 5 5 4Non-student employed 11 48 72 44University employed 3 12 5 7University not in the labour force 6 12 3 7College employed 6 6 2 5College not in the labour force 4 5 2 4Primary/secondary employed 21 1 <1* 7Primary/secondary not in the labour force 36 1 <1 12Other1 7 4 2 4

Total 100 100 100 100


Non-student not in the labour force 3* 14 16 11Non-student unemployed 4* 14 13 10Non-student employed 7 34 62 34University employed 4* 10 3* 6University not in the labour force 9 14 F 9College employed x 2* x 1*College not in the labour force 3** 8 2** 4Primary/secondary employed 14 x x 5Primary/secondary not in the labour force 50 x x 17Other1 6 3 x 4

Total 100 100 100 100


Non-student not in the labour force 3* 5 10 6Non-student unemployed 3* 11 11 8Non-student employed 9 53 70 42University employed 7* 12 4** 8University not in the labour force 7 11 x 7College employed 2** 2** x 2*College not in the labour force 2** 3* 2* 3Primary/secondary employed 21 x x 8Primary/secondary not in the labour force 40 x x 15Other1 7 2* x 3

Total 100 100 100 100

Nova Scotia

Non-student not in the labour force 3 6 10 6Non-student unemployed 3* 8 8 6Non-student employed 10 50 69 42University employed 5 14 5 8University not in the labour force 7 13 3* 8College employed 2* 2* 1** 2College not in the labour force 2* 3* 2* 2Primary/secondary employed 23 x x 8Primary/secondary not in the labour force 39 x x 14Other1 7 3 1* 4

Total 100 100 100 100

353

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.4

Distribution of the population aged 15 to 29, by education level, labour force status and age group, Canadaand provinces, 2005/2006 (continued)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 Total 15 to 29

percentageNew Brunswick

Non-student not in the labour force 2* 6 9 6Non-student unemployed 3* 8 9 7Non-student employed 11 52 73 45University employed 4* 10* 2* 5University not in the labour force 7 15 2** 8College employed 1** 3* 1** 2College not in the labour force 4* 3* 2** 3Primary/secondary employed 24 x x 8Primary/secondary not in the labour force 37 x x 12Other1 7 2 1** 3

Total 100 100 100 100

Quebec

Non-student not in the labour force 3 6 8 6Non-student unemployed 3 7 6 5Non-student employed 11 44 70 43University employed 1* 15 7 8University not in the labour force 2* 11 3 5College employed 13 6 1* 7College not in the labour force 9 3 1* 4Primary/secondary employed 12 2 x 5Primary/secondary not in the labour force 36 2 1* 12Other1 9 6 2 6

Total 100 100 100 100

Ontario

Non-student not in the labour force 3 6 9 6Non-student unemployed 2 5 5 4Non-student employed 9 45 73 42University employed 4 13 4 7University not in the labour force 8 14 2 8College employed 3 7 3 4College not in the labour force 3 5 1 3Primary/secondary employed 23 1* x 8Primary/secondary not in the labour force 38 1* x 13Other1 7 3 2 4

Total 100 100 100 100

Manitoba

Non-student not in the labour force 3 7 10 7Non-student unemployed 2 3 4 3Non-student employed 15 51 72 46University employed 7 16 6 10University not in the labour force 5 10 3* 6College employed 2 5 1* 3College not in the labour force 2* 3* 1** 2Primary/secondary employed 27 1** x 9Primary/secondary not in the labour force 31 1** x 11Other1 7 3 2* 4

Total 100 100 100 100


354

E2


Table E.2.4

Distribution of the population aged 15 to 29, by education level, labour force status and age group, Canadaand provinces, 2005/2006 (concluded)

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 Total 15 to 29

percentageSaskatchewan

Non-student not in the labour force 4 7 10 7Non-student unemployed 2 6 4 4Non-student employed 15 54 72 46University employed 5 12 4 7University not in the labour force 5 14 4* 8College employed 1* 2 1* 1College not in the labour force 2* 3 2* 2Primary/secondary employed 26 x x 9Primary/secondary not in the labour force 34 1** x 12Other1 6 2 2 3

Total 100 100 100 100

Alberta

Non-student not in the labour force 3 6 10 6Non-student unemployed 2 4 3 3Non-student employed 18 60 76 52University employed 3 8 3 4University not in the labour force 5 9 2* 6College employed 5 6 2 4College not in the labour force 3 5 2* 3Primary/secondary employed 26 x x 8Primary/secondary not in the labour force 31 x x 10Other1 5 2 1 2

Total 100 100 100 100

British Columbia

Non-student not in the labour force 4 7 10 7Non-student unemployed 2 3 4 3Non-student employed 15 50 70 45University employed 3 11 4 6University not in the labour force 5 10 4 7College employed 5 8 3 6College not in the labour force 3 7 3 5Primary/secondary employed 21 1* x 7Primary/secondary not in the labour force 36 x x 12Other1 5 3 2 3

Total 100 100 100 100

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%** indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 25% and less than or equal to 33.3%1. Includes unemployed students attending university, college, primary or secondary schools and students attending other kinds of schools.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

355

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.5

Percentage of 1995 and 2000 graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation, by level of educationand province of study

1995 graduates 2000 graduates

Province of study and 2 years after 5 years after 2 years after 5 years afterlevel of education graduation graduation graduation graduation

percentage percentageCanadaCollege 70.1 80.2 77.6 82.6University 68.5 80.9 73.5 80.9

Newfoundland and LabradorCollege 77.0 87.0 73.0 78.1University 62.1 80.5 73.0 81.5

Prince Edward IslandCollege 69.1 83.0 82.6 84.0University 62.2 79.5 75.8 83.8

Nova ScotiaCollege 65.3 74.2 75.4 74.4University 68.0 80.5 75.0 81.7

New BrunswickCollege 74.1 84.7 83.9 80.8University 70.4 83.0 77.4 83.2

QuebecCollege 67.3 82.1 78.8 82.5University 66.4 80.4 72.7 78.4

OntarioCollege 70.6 81.3 78.1 84.4University 69.5 83.0 73.3 84.0

ManitobaCollege 74.2 77.5 81.1 81.7University 69.0 79.0 76.3 78.3

SaskatchewanCollege 74.9 81.3 82.0 82.5University 72.4 79.9 79.2 83.0

AlbertaCollege 77.7 81.4 82.4 83.6University 72.2 77.7 77.7 80.4

British ColumbiaCollege 63.5 71.4 71.3 79.1University 67.9 77.3 69.2 75.9

Sources: National Graduates Survey, Statistics Canada.Follow-up of Graduates Survey, Statistics Canada.


356

E2


Table E.2.6

Percentage of 1995 and 2000 university graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by sex and field of study, Canada

1995 university graduates

2 years after graduation 5 years after graduation

Field of study Both sexes Males Females Both sexes Males Females


Total (all fields) 68.5 74.3 64.7 80.9 87.1 76.8

Personal improvement and leisure .. .. .. .. .. ..Education 70.9 82.0 66.7 79.1 87.7 75.8Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 52.7 60.7 49.7 60.1 73.0 55.2Humanities 53.5 58.7 51.2 74.4 78.4 72.6Social and behavioural sciences, and law 62.4 64.8 61.1 77.6 83.1 74.7Business, management and public administration 83.0 87.6 79.3 90.9 93.8 88.7Physical and life sciences, and technologies 53.7 59.0 48.3 76.8 79.9 73.5Mathematics, computer and information sciences 77.9 81.6 71.7 87.1 89.3 83.4Architecture, engineering and related technologies 81.3 81.8 78.9 92.8 93.4 90.3Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 79.8 83.4 74.8 81.6 92.4 66.5Health, parks, recreation and fitness 72.7 71.8 73.0 79.6 87.6 76.8Personal, protective and transportation services x x x x x xOther 66.4 77.2 60.0 82.5 91.4 77.3





Total (all fields) 73.5 76.7 71.3 80.9 84.3 78.7

Personal improvement and leisure .. .. .. .. .. ..Education 74.3 78.7 72.7 82.2 84.7 81.3Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 54.9 58.4 53.0 63.5 65.5 62.4Humanities 64.0 65.2 63.4 71.9 73.8 70.9Social and behavioural sciences, and law 69.5 76.0 66.5 80.2 85.6 77.6Business, management and public administration 86.7 86.5 86.8 90.3 91.5 89.2Physical and life sciences, and technologies 60.1 59.0 61.0 70.8 70.6 71.1Mathematics, computer and information sciences 78.3 76.7 81.2 83.5 84.5 81.5Architecture, engineering and related technologies 81.7 83.1 77.5 86.9 89.3 79.6Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 80.4 87.3 72.3 85.5 90.0 80.1Health, parks, recreation and fitness 76.9 76.1 77.2 82.3 88.3 80.2Personal, protective and transportation services F 83.4 E F 96.7 95.9 97.0Other 50.8 E F 49.4 E 64.6 E 70.8 E 62.3 E


357

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.7

Percentage of 1995 and 2000 college graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by sex and field of study, Canada

1995 college graduates




Total (all fields) 70.2 79.4 63.4 80.3 88.6 74.2

Personal improvement and leisure 62.6 E x 69.7 E 56.5 E 92.2 FEducation 63.1 64.1 E 63.0 71.5 97.1 69.2Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 65.9 76.6 57.6 75.9 85.3 68.7Humanities 41.9 54.4 36.7 59.4 60.2 59.0Social and behavioural sciences, and law 67.6 71.5 66.3 74.7 77.6 73.7Business, management and public administration 68.2 73.3 65.7 79.9 83.7 78.0Physical and life sciences, and technologies 76.2 84.7 71.3 81.2 77.4 83.5Mathematics, computer and information sciences 75.4 79.7 69.2 83.5 93.3 69.5Architecture, engineering and related technologies 82.3 84.1 70.5 91.7 92.9 83.7Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 81.5 85.7 70.2 90.8 95.8 77.3Health, parks, recreation and fitness 60.8 68.7 59.4 74.7 85.6 72.9Personal, protective and transportation services 80.0 88.7 68.6 84.7 90.4 77.2Other x x x x x ..





Total (all fields) 77.6 79.6 76.2 82.6 87.5 79.0

Personal improvement and leisure .. .. .. .. .. ..Education 72.6 F 74.1 82.7 87.3 82.5Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 71.3 76.1 68.3 76.5 79.9 74.2Humanities 53.5 69.3 E 43.9 E 69.6 77.8 64.7Social and behavioural sciences, and law 78.7 72.2 82.4 83.2 86.8 81.2Business, management and public administration 78.7 77.6 79.1 84.4 89.5 82.1Physical and life sciences, and technologies 90.6 91.6 90.2 83.0 84.6 82.4Mathematics, computer and information sciences 79.4 78.2 81.1 79.7 80.8 78.0Architecture, engineering and related technologies 80.5 81.0 78.4 89.2 90.8 81.2Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 88.1 95.0 77.7 83.4 87.1 77.7Health, parks, recreation and fitness 74.2 74.0 74.2 76.7 80.0 76.1Personal, protective and transportation services 80.8 89.3 69.1 82.9 92.7 69.3Other .. .. .. .. .. ..



358

E2


Table E.2.8

Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000 graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by level of education and province of study

1995 graduates 2000 graduates

Province of study and 2 years after 5 years after 2 years after 5 years afterlevel of education graduation graduation graduation graduation

thousands of 2001 constant dollars thousands of 2001 constant dollarsCanadaCollege 28 35 28 33University 37 44 38 46

Newfoundland and LabradorCollege 32 37 25 30University 36 41 36 44

Prince Edward IslandCollege 25 29 22 27University 27 36 29 39

Nova ScotiaCollege 23 28 20 25University 32 41 34 41

New BrunswickCollege 26 33 25 29University 32 41 34 41

QuebecCollege 25 32 24 30University 38 43 39 43

OntarioCollege 28 36 30 37University 37 46 39 47

ManitobaCollege 26 32 25 31University 34 41 35 42

SaskatchewanCollege 28 36 26 33University 35 42 36 44

AlbertaCollege 28 36 30 39University 35 46 39 48

British ColumbiaCollege 32 37 32 35University 41 47 38 44


359

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.9

Distribution of annual earnings of 2000 graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation, by sex,level of education and province of study


25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile

Province of study and Both Both Bothlevel of education sexes Males Females sexes Males Females sexes Males Females

thousands of 2001 thousands of 2001 thousands of 2001constant dollars constant dollars constant dollars

CanadaCollege 21 23 20 28 31 26 37 40 34University 28 31 27 38 41 36 49 55 45

Newfoundland and LabradorCollege 15 19 14 25 29 20 34 39 28University 27 28 26 36 40 36 46 54 43

Prince Edward IslandCollege 17 19 14 22 25 20 31 36 26University 12 9 E 16 29 27 29 38 40 37

Nova ScotiaCollege 15 17 15 20 24 19 29 33 23University 19 22 18 34 35 33 48 51 47

New BrunswickCollege 20 21 18 25 28 23 32 36 29University 23 26 22 34 39 31 45 49 40

QuebecCollege 19 20 18 24 28 23 31 35 27University 28 31 27 39 42 35 49 56 45

OntarioCollege 22 24 21 30 34 29 39 42 36University 29 33 29 39 42 37 49 59 45

ManitobaCollege 20 22 19 25 29 23 32 38 29University 24 25 23 35 37 34 44 47 42

SaskatchewanCollege 20 21 20 26 30 25 34 37 31University 29 29 29 36 39 35 46 49 43

AlbertaCollege 23 28 21 30 34 29 40 42 37University 28 32 27 39 44 36 52 56 48

British ColumbiaCollege 23 26 22 32 33 31 41 42 39University 27 28 27 38 39 37 49 54 49


360

E2


Table E.2.9

Distribution of annual earnings of 2000 graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation, by sex,level of education and province of study (concluded)


25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile

Province of study and Both Both Bothlevel of education sexes Males Females sexes Males Females sexes Males Females

thousands of 2001 thousands of 2001 thousands of 2001constant dollars constant dollars constant dollars

CanadaCollege 26 28 24 33 38 31 44 48 40University 36 37 35 46 49 43 57 64 53

Newfoundland and LabradorCollege 21 26 18 30 36 25 42 48 33University 36 38 35 44 46 42 53 63 50

Prince Edward IslandCollege 19 22 18 27 30 24 34 41 30University 31 34 30 39 39 38 50 51 48

Nova ScotiaCollege 19 22 18 25 30 23 33 42 27University 31 33 29 41 46 38 55 61 54

New BrunswickCollege 22 24 21 29 32 27 38 41 33University 32 36 29 41 44 38 51 58 48

QuebecCollege 25 29 23 30 34 27 37 41 32University 35 38 32 43 48 40 57 64 50

OntarioCollege 27 29 25 37 39 33 46 50 43University 37 37 37 47 50 46 57 64 54

ManitobaCollege 24 28 22 31 34 27 41 46 35University 33 37 31 42 47 41 55 62 49

SaskatchewanCollege 25 27 23 33 38 31 44 50 38University 35 37 34 44 46 43 55 59 51

AlbertaCollege 29 35 26 39 44 35 50 55 46University 37 41 35 48 55 46 64 73 55

British ColumbiaCollege 26 28 25 35 37 32 46 49 42University 35 37 33 44 48 42 59 68 54


361

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.10

Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000 college graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by sex and field of study




thousands of 2001 constant dollars thousands of 2001 constant dollars

Total (all fields) 28 31 25 35 41 31

Personal improvement and leisure F x F 23 E F FEducation 24 F 24 26 F 26Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 24 27 22 32 36 28Humanities 23 23 E 23 E 31 36 E 29 E

Social and behavioural sciences, and law 25 26 25 31 36 30Business, management and public administration 25 29 23 32 40 29Physical and life sciences, and technologies 31 29 E 32 E 42 41 43Mathematics, computer and information sciences 34 36 30 42 46 37Architecture, engineering and related technologies 32 33 27 41 42 33Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 29 31 24 36 38 31Health, parks, recreation and fitness 28 30 28 36 39 35Personal, protective and transportation services 28 29 26 36 39 32Other x x x x x ..





Total (all fields) 28 31 26 33 38 31

Personal improvement and leisure .. .. .. .. .. ..Education 22 42 E 22 24 F 24Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 24 24 24 27 28 25Humanities 24 24 17 E 27 E 40 24 E

Social and behavioural sciences, and law 27 28 26 32 29 33Business, management and public administration 28 30 27 33 36 32Physical and life sciences, and technologies 29 29 30 36 41 35Mathematics, computer and information sciences 32 34 25 37 38 33Architecture, engineering and related technologies 33 33 30 39 41 34Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 27 30 23 30 32 27Health, parks, recreation and fitness 29 32 28 35 39 33Personal, protective and transportation services 28 31 22 37 40 27Other .. .. .. .. .. ..



362

E2


Table E.2.11

Median annual earnings of 1995 and 2000 university graduates working full-time, two and five years after graduation,by sex and field of study





Total (all fields) 37 39 35 44 49 41

Personal improvement and leisure .. .. .. .. .. ..Education 39 40 37 43 46 42Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 25 23 E 26 E 36 31 E 36 E

Humanities 30 32 29 38 42 36Social and behavioural sciences, and law 31 32 29 41 44 41Business, management and public administration 37 41 35 46 52 43Physical and life sciences, and technologies 32 35 30 41 45 40Mathematics, computer and information sciences 41 42 37 55 58 46Architecture, engineering and related technologies 43 43 42 56 57 51Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 32 35 E 29 E 43 45 37Health, parks, recreation and fitness 43 43 43 49 51 49Personal, protective and transportation services x x x x x xOther 38 E F 37 E 45 E F 38 E





Total (all fields) 38 41 36 46 49 43

Personal improvement and leisure .. .. .. .. .. ..Education 38 39 37 45 46 44Visual and performing arts, andcommunications technologies 25 24 25 34 34 33Humanities 30 31 29 40 41 39Social and behavioural sciences, and law 34 37 33 42 43 41Business, management and public administration 42 47 39 50 55 47Physical and life sciences, and technologies 31 34 30 43 45 41Mathematics, computer and information sciences 46 47 45 54 55 51Architecture, engineering and related technologies 49 49 48 55 55 54Agriculture, natural resources and conservation 35 37 31 41 44 38Health, parks, recreation and fitness 43 42 43 50 53 49Personal, protective and transportation services 49 66 E 44 E 43 E 64 32 E

Other 37 E 59 E 36 E 29 E x 29 E


363

E2Chapter E tables


Table E.2.12

Migration characteristics of 1995 graduates in the period before enrolling and two years after graduation,Canada and jurisdictions

Number of graduates Migration rates

Residence Migration Migration Residence Migration Migrationone year to study Residence after graduation two years to study1 after graduation2 Overall3

Education level before at gra- after gra-and jurisdiction enrolling Out In duation Out In duation Out In Net Out In Net Net

number percentageCollege

Canada 81,425 3,079 3,079 81,425 2,175 2,176 81,425 4 4 … 3 3 … …

Newfoundland and Labrador 832 122 x 720 149 x 634 15 x x 21 x x -24Prince Edward Island 349 x 120 440 46 x 419 x 34 x 10 x x 20Nova Scotia 1,799 325 144 1,617 166 201 1,652 18 8 -10 10 12 2 -8New Brunswick 1,446 191 x 1,289 77 x 1,252 13 x x 6 x x -13Quebec 17,367 851 x 16,555 x x 16,570 x x x x x x -5Ontario 36,889 258** 1,448 38,079 768 x 37,520 x 4 x 2 x x 2Manitoba 2,670 3 77 2,543 139 x 2,491 x 3 3 5 x x -7Saskatchewan 1,995 x x 1,483 94 416 1,805 x x x 6 28 22 -10Alberta 8,773 288 804 9,289 503 429 9,216 3 9 6 5 5 -1 5British Columbia 9,051 186 347 9,212 x 535 9,626 2 4 2 x 6 x 6Territories 254 x x 198 x x x x x x x x x x

University

Canada 153,461 12,735 12,735 153,463 6,374 6,374 153,462 8 8 … 4 4 … …

Newfoundland and Labrador 2,784 671 161 2,274 384 384 2,274 24 6 -18 17 17 x -18Prince Edward Island 799 387 101 514 78 x 518 48 x x 15 x x -35Nova Scotia 5,377 745 1,864 6,496 1,151 264 5,609 14 35 21 18 4 -14 4New Brunswick 3,959 961 754 3,752 493 255 3,514 24 19 -5 13 7 -6 -11Quebec 48,358 2,001 2,119 48,476 865* 338** 47,949 4 4 0 2 1 -1 -1Ontario 57,207 3,157 4,050 58,100 1,455 1,709 58,354 6 7 2 3 3 0 2Manitoba 5,467 529 573 5,511 535 127 5,103 10 10 1 10 2 -7 -7Saskatchewan 5,248 688 560 5,120 457 461 5,123 13 11 -2 9 9 0 -2Alberta 11,482 1,695 1,190 10,978 608 1,262 11,632 15 10 -4 6 11 6 1British Columbia 12,510 1,631 1,363 12,242 350 1,272 13,164 13 11 -2 3 10 8 5Territories 270 270 x x x 221 221 x x x x x x x

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%** indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 25% and less than or equal to 33.3%1. The rate of out (in) migration to study is defined as the number of graduates who left (entered) a jurisdiction to pursue studies, as a percentage of the

number of graduates by jurisdiction of residence prior to enrolment. Used as a measure of “student mobility”.2. The rate of out (in) migration after graduation is defined as the number of graduates who left (entered) a jurisdiction within two years after graduation,

as a percentage of the number of graduates of the jurisdiction. Used as a measure of “graduate mobility”.3. Net overall migration is defined as the difference between the number of graduates per jurisdiction based on residence two years after graduation versus

residence one year before enrolment, as a percentage of the number of graduates per jurisdiction based on residence one year before enrolment.Source: National Graduates Survey, Statistics Canada.


364

E2


Table E.2.13

Migration characteristics of 2000 graduates in the period before enrolling and two years after graduation,Canada and jurisdictions

Number of graduates Migration rates

Residence Migration Migration Residence Migration Migrationone year to study Residence after graduation two years to study1 after graduation2 Overall3

Education level before at gra- after gra-and jurisdiction enrolling Out In duation Out In duation Out In Net Out In Net Net

number percentageCollege

Canada 99,950 3,450 3,450 99,950 5,850 5,850 99,950 3.5 3.5 … 5.9 5.9 … …

Newfoundland and Labrador 1,710 150** 100 1,660 400 160** 1,420 8.9* 5.8* x 24.2 9.6 -14.5 -17.0Prince Edward Island 760 x 280 960 360 90** 690 x 36.8 x 37.8 9.4 -28.1 -9.2*Nova Scotia 4,060 480* 180 3,750 460 680 3,970 11.9 4.4 -7.4 12.3 18.1 5.9 -2.2New Brunswick 2,690 250* 180 2,620 340 350 2,640 9.3 6.7 -2.6 12.9 x 0.4 -1.9Quebec 16,290 890* 140* 15,550 360 920* 16,110 5.5* x -4.6 2.3 5.9 3.6 -1.1*Ontario 49,100 230 1,570 50,430 2,070 850 49,210 0.5 3.2 2.7 4.1 1.7 -2.4 0.2Manitoba 2,480 x 90 2,440 170 230** 2,500 5.3** 3.6** x 7.1 9.4 2.5 0.8*Saskatchewan 2,670 230* 90 2,530 320 250* 2,460 8.6* 3.4* -5.2 12.7 9.9 -2.8 -7.9Alberta 5,360 360* 390 5,390 390 1,400 6,400 6.8 7.3 x 7.3 26.0 18.7 19.4British Columbia 14,390 360* 270* 14,300 930 820* 14,180 2.5* 1.9** -0.6 6.5 5.7 -0.8 -1.5Territories 440 150** x 300 x 100* 370 33.4* x x 8.1** x x -15.9**

University

Canada 157,310 13,470 13,470 157,310 18,310 18,310 157,310 8.6 8.6 … 11.6 11.6 … …

Newfoundland and Labrador 2,640 660 130 2,120 560 480 2,040 24.9 4.9 -20.1 26.3 22.6 -3.8 -22.7Prince Edward Island 790 370* 90 510 170 280 620 46.6 11.4 -35.4 33.3 54.9 21.6 -21.5Nova Scotia 5,260 940 1,790 6,110 2,610 930 4,430 17.9 34.0 16.2 42.7 15.2 -27.5 -15.8New Brunswick 3,580 1,050 850 3,390 1,250 810 2,950 29.3 23.7 -5.6 36.9 23.9 -13.0 -17.6Quebec 41,350 1,770 2,080 41,660 3,350 2,250 40,560 4.3 5.0 0.7 8.0 5.4 -2.6 -1.9Ontario 61,550 3,350 3,950 62,160 3,900 6,610 64,870 5.4 6.4 1.0 6.3 10.6 4.4 5.4Manitoba 5,390 790 420 5,010 850 600 4,760 14.8 7.8 -6.9 17.0 12.0 -5.0 -11.7Saskatchewan 5,090 640 580 5,020 1,450 580 4,150 12.6 11.4 -1.2 29.0 11.6 -17.3 -18.5Alberta 12,410 1,400 1,840 12,860 1,730 2,990 14,120 11.2 14.8 3.5 13.4 23.3 9.8 13.8British Columbia 18,970 2,240 1,720 18,450 2,440 2,350 18,360 11.8 9.1 -2.7 13.2 12.7 -0.5 -3.2Territories 280* 260* x x x 430* 450* 92.7 .. .. x x x x

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%.** indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 25% and less than or equal to 33.3%.1. The rate of out (in) migration to study is defined as the number of graduates who left (entered) a jurisdiction to pursue studies, as a percentage of the

number of graduates by jurisdiction of residence prior to enrolment. Used as a measure of “student mobility”.2. The rate of out (in) migration after graduation is defined as the number of graduates who left (entered) a jurisdiction two years after graduation, as a

percentage of the number of graduates of the jurisdiction. Used as a measure of “graduate mobility”.3. Net overall migration is defined as the difference between the number of graduates per jurisdiction based on residence two years after graduation versus

residence one year before enrolment, as a percentage of the number of graduates per jurisdiction based on residence one year before enrolment.Source: National Graduates Survey, Statistics Canada.

365

E3Chapter E tables


Table E.3.1

Unemployment rates of population aged 15 and over, by level of education, Canada, 1990 to 2006

Less than CollegeAll levels high school1 High school2 or trade3 University4

percentage

1990 8.1 12.4 7.8 6.3 3.81991 10.3 15.4 10.2 8.2 4.91992 11.2 17.0 10.9 9.3 5.51993 11.4 17.0 11.6 9.6 5.81994 10.4 16.1 10.2 9.0 5.41995 9.5 15.1 9.6 7.9 5.01996 9.6 15.4 9.8 8.1 5.21997 9.1 15.7 9.2 7.4 4.81998 8.3 14.5 8.6 6.5 4.31999 7.6 13.5 7.8 5.9 4.22000 6.8 12.5 7.0 5.2 3.92001 7.2 13.1 7.2 5.8 4.62002 7.7 13.9 7.8 5.9 5.02003 7.6 13.8 7.8 5.8 5.42004 7.2 13.2 7.5 5.6 4.92005 6.8 12.6 7.1 5.3 4.62006 6.3 12.3 6.5 5.1 4.0

1. Includes no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduation or some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes trade certificate or diploma from a vocational school or apprenticeship training; non-university certificate or diploma from a community

college, CEGEP, school of nursing and similar programs at this level; university certificate below bachelor’s level.4. Includes bachelor’s degree; university degree or certificate above bachelor’s degree.Notes: The data for 1995 to 1998 have been revised and are different from those previously published in 2005 PCEIP Report (Statistics Canada and

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2005. Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Catalogueno. 81-582=XIE. Ottawa.).The unemployment rate is based on a monthly average from January to December.

Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Tables E3


366

E3


Table E.3.2

Unemployment rates of 25- to 29-year-olds, by educational attainment, Canada and provinces, 1996 and 2006


percentage1996

Canada 10.5 21.4 11.8 8.9 5.7

Newfoundland and Labrador 22.1 41.2 25.0 19.9 11.3Prince Edward Island 16.3 28.6 17.4 10.3 6.7Nova Scotia 14.3 27.0 17.5 12.1 6.4New Brunswick 12.6 28.3 15.9 8.7 5.4Quebec 12.6 25.2 13.7 10.6 7.5Ontario 10.0 19.0 12.7 8.4 5.1Manitoba 8.5 18.8 8.9 6.3 4.5Saskatchewan 9.8 24.6 10.1 6.6 3.4Alberta 6.5 12.3 7.2 4.7 5.0British Columbia 8.9 20.5 9.4 7.9 5.5

2006

Canada 6.1 13.4 7.3 5.2 4.4

Newfoundland and Labrador 16.7 53.8 20.9 16.2 6.8Prince Edward Island 12.2 25.0 13.0 7.4 6.7Nova Scotia 7.7 22.9 7.9 7.6 3.7New Brunswick 8.4 22.7 11.5 6.9 3.5Quebec 7.3 15.9 10.5 6.3 4.3Ontario 6.3 14.4 7.9 4.9 4.8Manitoba 4.5 6.5 5.8 3.7 3.2Saskatchewan 5.5 13.2 7.0 4.0 3.1Alberta 3.1 5.9 3.4 2.6 2.3British Columbia 4.7 8.3 4.7 3.2 5.6

1. Includes no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduation or some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes trade certificate or diploma from a vocational school or apprenticeship training; non-university certificate or diploma from a community

college, CEGEP, school of nursing and similar programs at this level; university certificate below bachelor’s level.4. Includes bachelor’s degree; university degree or certificate above bachelor’s degree.Note: The unemployment rate is based on a monthly average from January to December.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

Table E.3.3

Unemployment rates of population aged 15 and over, by level of education, off-reserve Aboriginal population1

from Western Canada2, 2004 to 2006


percentage

2004 13.1 20.7 13.5 7.8 5.2**2005 12.2 21.5 10.8 8.4 3.7*2006 9.8 16.7 8.9 6.4 5.9*

* indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) between 16.6% and 25%.** indicates a coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 25% and less than or equal to 33.3%.1. Aboriginal population refers to those persons who reported identifying with at least one Aboriginal group, i.e., North American Indian, Métis or Inuit.2. Includes Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Data not comparable to Table E.3.2 as an experimental weight is used here.3. Includes no education or education below high school graduation.4. Includes high school graduation or some postsecondary education (not completed).5. Includes trade certificate or diploma from a vocational school or apprenticeship training; non-university certificate or diploma from a community

college, CEGEP, school of nursing and similar programs at this level; university certificate below bachelor’s level.6. Includes bachelor’s degree; university degree or certificate above bachelor’s degree.Note: The unemployment rate is based on a monthly average from January to December. In 2004, the monthly average is from April to December.Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada.

367

E3Chapter E tables


Table E.3.4

Distribution of earners, by educational attainment at different earnings levels, Canada, 2000

$20,000 to $40,000 to $60,000 to $80,000 to $100,000< $20,000 < $40,000 < $60,000 < $80,000 < $100,000 or more

percentage

Less than high school1 30 20 14 9 8 7High school2 32 28 21 17 15 12Trades3 10 14 15 14 12 8College4 15 21 21 19 17 13University5 14 18 29 42 48 61

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.4. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEPs, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.5. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).Source: 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

Table E.3.5

Relative earnings of the 25- to 64-year-old population with income from employment, by level of educationalattainment, selected OECD countries (high school and trade-vocational education = 100), 2002, 2003 and 2004

Below high College orschool College University university

index

Canada (2003) 78 112 169 140

France (2004) 85 125 163 147Germany (2004) 88 128 163 153Italy (2002) 78 .. 153 153United Kingdom (2004) 67 124 174 158United States (2004) 65 114 181 172

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2006 (Table A9.1a).

Table E.3.6

Average employment income, by age group and education level, Canada, 2000

Age group

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 Total

dollars

All education levels 4,921 13,888 26,421 33,008 37,010 39,364 41,020 41,535 38,535 32,877 31,757

Less than high school1 4,002 14,383 21,161 24,013 26,593 28,303 29,177 29,014 28,060 25,047 21,230High school2 6,002 12,655 23,579 28,373 30,980 32,786 34,591 35,225 33,291 28,577 25,477Trades3 8,309 17,490 26,319 30,714 34,111 36,542 38,061 38,252 36,503 31,984 32,743College4 6,514 14,727 26,400 31,888 36,388 38,713 39,673 40,292 37,273 31,583 32,736University5 11,096 13,959 31,062 42,847 52,154 58,205 60,295 60,801 58,969 53,644 48,648

1. Includes individuals having no education or education below high school graduation.2. Includes high school graduates and individuals who have some postsecondary education (not completed).3. Includes graduates of trade-vocational programs.4. Includes graduates of community colleges, CEGEPs, schools of nursing and similar programs at this level.5. Includes individuals with a university degree or certificate (below or above bachelor’s degree).Source: 2001 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.

Committees and organizations


Committees and organizationsThis report was jointly produced by Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministersof Education, Canada (CMEC), in partnership with the departments and ministriesof the provinces and territories with responsibility for education and training.Intergovernmental committees that have played a key role in the development of thispublication are the Canadian Education Statistics Council (CESC), the StrategicManagement Committee of the CESC, and the Working Group on EducationIndicators. The following is a list of committees and organizations that have played akey role in shaping, developing and producing this publication, as well as theirmembership. Staff of CMEC and Statistics Canada who have played a direct role inthe production of the report are also listed.

Canadian Education Statistics Council

Keray Henke Alberta EducationBob Fessenden Alberta Advanced Education and TechnologyEmery Dosdall Ministry of Education, British ColumbiaMoura Quayle Ministry of Advanced Education, British ColumbiaElaine Phillips Department of Advanced Education and Literacy, ManitobaGerald Farthing Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth, ManitobaRoger Doucet Department of Education, New BrunswickJohn Kershaw Department of Education, New BrunswickNora Kelly Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour,

New BrunswickRebecca Roome Department of Education, Newfoundland and LabradorDan Daniels Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Northwest

TerritoriesDennis Cochrane Department of Education, Nova ScotiaKathy Okpik Department of Education, NunavutPhilip Steenkamp Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Ontario

Ministry of Education, OntarioShauna Sullivan Curley Department of Education, Prince Edward IslandMichel Boivin Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sport, QuebecBonnie Durnford Department of Advanced Education and Employment, SaskatchewanWynne Young Saskatchewan LearningPamela Hine Department of Education, YukonIvan Fellegi Statistics Canada



Strategic Management Committee

Bob Gardiner Department of Education, Newfoundland and LabradorKen MacRae Department of Education, Prince Edward IslandShannon Delbridge Department of Education, Nova ScotiaDawn Gordon Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission (MPHEC),

New BrunswickCathy Garabb-Read Department of Education, New BrunswickKelly Rodgers-Sturgeon Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour,

New BrunswickRichard Wiggers Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour,

New BrunswickJean Tremblay Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sport, QuebecJean-Claude Bousquet Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sport, QuebecMary-Beth Wallace Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, OntarioCharlotte McCloskey Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, OntarioDon Young Ministry of Education, OntarioDallas Morrow Department of Advanced Education and Literacy, ManitobaKeith Lowe Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth, ManitobaJan Gray Department of Advanced Education and Employment, SaskatchewanDarryl Hunter Saskatchewan LearningTim Caleval Saskatchewan LearningLois Hawkins Alberta EducationJanusz Zieminski Alberta EducationBruce McDonald Alberta Advanced Education and TechnologyEd Stafford Alberta Advanced Education and TechnologyGerald Morton Ministry of Education, British ColumbiaTony Loughran Ministry of Advanced Education, British ColumbiaMartin Young Ministry of Advanced Education, British ColumbiaBrent Slobodin Department of Education, YukonPaul Devitt Department of Education, Culture and Employment,

Northwest TerritoriesBrad Chambers Department of Education, NunavutSange De Silva Statistics CanadaFrançois Nault Statistics CanadaRaymond Théberge Council of Ministers of Education, CanadaAmanda Spencer Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

Project Team1

Danielle Baum Statistics CanadaSimone Bochniak Statistics CanadaSharon-Anne Borde Council of Ministers of Education, CanadaEvelyne Bougie Statistics CanadaRita Ceolin Council of Ministers of Education, CanadaRosemarie Andrews Statistics CanadaPatrice de Broucker Statistics CanadaJiaosheng He Statistics CanadaLes Macartney Statistics CanadaAmanda Spencer Council of Ministers of Education, CanadaBarbara Riggs Statistics CanadaJohn Zhao Statistics CanadaJelena Zikic Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

1. Note of appreciation to staff of the Centre for Education Statistics at Statistics Canada for their invaluablecontribution to this report, and to staff of Dissemination Division and Translation Services at Statistics Canada.

CMEC, 2007: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators

Documents

Transcript of CMEC, 2007: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators